[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 166 (Monday, August 28, 2006)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 50998-51048]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-7094]
[[Page 50997]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part II
Department of Transportation
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
49 CFR Part 563
Event Data Recorders; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 166 / Monday, August 28, 2006 / Rules
and Regulations
[[Page 50998]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 563
[Docket No. NHTSA-2006-25666]
RIN 2127-AI72
Event Data Recorders
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This final rule specifies uniform requirements for the
accuracy, collection, storage, survivability, and retrievability of
onboard motor vehicle crash event data in passenger cars and other
light vehicles equipped with event data recorders (EDRs). This final
rule responds to the growing practice in the motor vehicle industry of
voluntarily installing EDRs in an increasing number of light vehicles.
This final rule is intended to standardize the data obtained through
EDRs so that such data may be put to the most effective future use and
to ensure that EDR infrastructure develops in such a way as to speed
medical assistance through providing a foundation for automatic crash
notification (ACN). This final regulation: requires that the EDRs
installed in light vehicles record a minimum set of specified data
elements; standardizes the format in which those data are recorded;
helps to ensure the crash survivability of an EDR and its data by
requiring that the EDR function during and after the front and side
vehicle crash tests specified in two Federal motor vehicle safety
standards; and requires vehicle manufacturers to ensure the commercial
availability of the tools necessary to enable crash investigators to
retrieve data from the EDR. In addition, to ensure public awareness of
EDRs, the regulation also requires vehicle manufacturers to include a
standardized statement in the owner's manual indicating that the
vehicle is equipped with an EDR and describing the functions and
capabilities of EDRs.
This final rule for standardization of EDR data will ensure that
EDRs record, in a readily usable manner, the data necessary for ACN,
effective crash investigations, and analysis of safety equipment
performance. Standardization of EDR data will facilitate development of
ACN, e-911, and similar systems, which could lead to future safety
enhancements. In addition, analysis of EDR data can contribute to safer
vehicle designs and a better understanding of the circumstances and
causation of crashes and injuries.
DATES: Effective Date: This rule is effective October 27, 2006. The
incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in the
regulation is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of
October 27, 2006.
Compliance Dates: Except as provided below, light vehicles
manufactured on or after September 1, 2010 that are equipped with an
EDR and manufacturers of those vehicles must comply with this rule.
However, vehicles that are manufactured in two or more stages or that
are altered are not required to comply with the rule until September 1,
2011.
Petitions: If you wish to submit a petition for reconsideration of
this rule, your petition must be received by October 12, 2006.
ADDRESSES: Petitions for reconsideration should refer to the docket
number above and be submitted to: Administrator, Room 5220, National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20590.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The following persons at the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20590.
For technical and policy issues: Ms. Lori Summers, Office of
Crashworthiness Standards (Telephone: 202-366-1740) (Fax: 202-493-
2739).
For legal issues: Mr. Eric Stas, Office of the Chief Counsel
(Telephone: 202-366-2992) (Fax: 202-366-3820).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Executive Summary
A. Purpose of the Regulation
B. Developments Culminating in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
1. Early Agency Efforts on EDRs
2. The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
C. Requirements of the Final Rule
D. Lead Time
E. Differences Between the Final Rule and the Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking
F. Impacts of the Final Rule
II. Background
A. Overview of EDR Technology
B. Chronology of Events Relating to NHTSA's Consideration of
EDRs
C. Petitions for Rulemaking
1. Petitions From Mr. Price T. Bingham and Ms. Marie E. Birnbaum
2. Petition From Dr. Ricardo Martinez
D. October 2002 Request for Comments
III. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
A. Summary of the NPRM
B. Summary of Public Comments to the NPRM
IV. The Final Rule and Response to Public Comments
A. The Final Rule
1. Summary of the Requirements
2. Lead Time
B. Response to Public Comments
1. Whether NHTSA Should Require EDRs
2. EDR Data Elements
a. Number and Types of Required Data Elements
b. The ``Acceleration'' and ``Delta-V'' Data Elements
c. Multiple-event Crashes and the ``Multiple-event'' Data
Element
d. Sampling Rates and Recording Intervals for Required Data
Elements
3. EDR Data Standardization (Format) Requirements
4. EDR Data Retrieval and Whether to Require a Standardized Data
Retrieval Tool/Universal Interface
5. EDR Survivability and Crash Test Performance Requirements
6. Compliance Date
7. Privacy Issues
8. Owner's Manual Disclosure Statement
9. Preemption
10. Applicability of the EDR Rule to Multi-stage Vehicles
11. Applicability of the EDR Rule to Heavy Vehicles and Buses
12. Automatic Crash Notification and E-911
13. Definitions
a. ``Trigger Threshold''
b. ``Event''
c. ``Event Data Recorder''
14. Utilization of SAE and IEEE Standards
15. Costs
16. Other Issues
a. Scope and Purpose
b. Technical Changes to Definitions and New Definitions
c. Data Capture
d. Miscellaneous Comments
V. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
I. Executive Summary
A. Purpose of the Regulation
Event data recorders have been used in recent years in a variety of
transportation modes to collect crash information. EDR data will play
an increasing role in advancing developing networks for providing
emergency medical services. Specifically, EDR data can help the safety
community develop ACN, electronic 911 (e-911), and other emergency
response systems to improve medical services to crash victims. In
addition, EDR data can also provide information to enhance our
understanding of crash events and safety system performance, thereby
potentially contributing to safer vehicle designs and more effective
safety regulations.
EDRs have experienced dramatic changes in the past decade, both in
terms of their technical capabilities and fleet penetration. EDRs today
demonstrate a range of features, with some systems collecting only
vehicle acceleration/deceleration data, but
[[Page 50999]]
others collecting these data plus a host of complementary data such as
driver inputs (e.g., braking and steering) and vehicle system status.
The challenge for NHTSA has been to devise an approach that would
encourage broad application of EDR technologies in motor vehicles and
maximize the usefulness of EDR data for the medical community,
researchers, and regulators, without imposing unnecessary burdens or
hampering future improvements to EDRs.
In light of the relatively high new vehicle fleet penetration of
EDRs (currently estimated at 64%) and present trends, we do not believe
that it is necessary to mandate the installation of EDRs in all new
vehicles. Were these trends reversed or slowed, we would consider
revisiting this assessment. For now, we believe that standardization of
EDR data represents the most important area of opportunity in terms of
enhancing the yield of benefits from EDRs. We recognize that the
automobile industry has already invested considerable effort and
resources into developing effective EDR technologies, so we want to be
especially careful not to adopt requirements that would result in
unnecessary costs.
Accordingly, this final rule regulates voluntarily-provided EDRs by
specifying a minimum core set of required data elements and
accompanying range, accuracy, and resolution requirements for those
elements. This will help ensure that EDRs provide the types of data
most useful for the emergency medical services (EMS) community and
crash reconstructionists, and in a manner that promotes the consistency
and comparability of these data. We note that by specifying this
minimum data set, we are not limiting manufacturers' ability to design
EDRs that collect a broader set of data, provided that the required
elements are present.
The rule also includes requirements for the survivability of EDR
data (so that it is not lost in most crashes) and the retrievability of
EDR data (so that it can be obtained by authorized users). In sum, the
objectives of our regulation are to get the right data, in sufficient
quantity and in a standardized format, and to ensure that the data can
survive most crash events and be retrieved by intended users.
By promulgating a uniform national regulation for EDRs, it is our
intent to provide one consistent set of minimum requirements for
vehicle manufacturers that choose to install EDRs. We believe that this
approach will not only enhance the quality of EDR data, but also
facilitate increased numbers of new light vehicles equipped with EDRs.
We also believe that this minimum data set provides key elements in a
standardized format that will be useful for ACN or other telematic
systems.
B. Developments Culminating in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
1. Early Agency Efforts on EDRs
NHTSA has been assessing the potential benefits of EDR for over a
decade, and in that time, we have witnessed a significant maturation of
EDR technology. The agency initially began examining EDRs in 1991 as
part of the Special Crash Investigations (SCI) program. In 1997, the
National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) and the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Jet Propulsion Laboratory
(JPL) recommended that NHTSA consider the possibility of requiring the
installation of EDRs in motor vehicles. NTSB made additional
recommendations related to EDRs in 1999 (i.e., suggesting that EDRs be
installed in school buses and motor coaches). Since 1998, NHTSA has
sponsored two Working Groups to examine and report on EDR issues.
As discussed below, the agency received two petitions for
rulemaking in the late 1990s asking that light vehicles be equipped
with ``black boxes'' (i.e., EDRs) that would record data during a crash
so that it could be read later by crash investigators. However, the
agency denied those petitions because the industry was already moving
voluntarily in the direction recommended by the petitioners, and
because the agency believed that certain outstanding issues would best
be addressed in a non-regulatory context.
In 2001, NHTSA received a third petition for rulemaking related to
EDRs from Dr. Ricardo Martinez, seeking a requirement for installation
of EDRs as well as standardization of EDR data. After considering the
Martinez petition and the current situation vis-[agrave]-vis EDRs, we
decided to publish a request for comments as to what future role the
agency should take related to the continued development and
installation of EDRs in motor vehicles. This notice was published on
October 11, 2002 (67 FR 63493), and after considering the input from a
variety of interested stakeholders and the public, we decided to grant
the Martinez petition in part (i.e., the request for standardization
and retrievability) and to deny it in part (i.e., the request for an
EDR mandate).
2. The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
On June 14, 2004, NHTSA published a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) proposing requirements for EDRs voluntarily installed by light
vehicle manufacturers (69 FR 32932).\1\ The decision to conduct
rulemaking reflected careful deliberation and our belief that EDRs
represent a significant technological safety innovation, particularly
for the emergency response safety community.\2\ Again, the proposal
sought to standardize the elements and format of data deemed most
appropriate for advancing our goals of enabling ACN and improving crash
reconstructions and for ensuring the retrievability of that
information. Most of these data elements are already recorded by
current EDRs. It was not our intention to require an exhaustive list of
non-essential data elements that would significantly increase the cost
of EDRs, thereby jeopardizing the current, high rate of installation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Docket No. NHTSA-2004-18029-2.
\2\ We note that NHTSA has been assessing the potential benefits
of EDRs for over a decade, and in that time, we have witnessed a
significant maturation of EDR technology. For further information on
these agency research and analytical efforts, please consult the
NPRM, which discussed this topic extensively (see 69 FR 32932, 32933
(June 14, 2004)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In summary, the NPRM proposed to require light vehicles voluntarily
equipped with an EDR to meet uniform, national requirements for the
collection, storage, and retrievability of onboard motor vehicle crash
event data. The proposal included Table I, Data Elements Required for
All Vehicles Equipped with an EDR, which included 18 required elements
that would have to be recorded during the interval/time and at the
sample rate specified in that table. The proposal also included Table
II, Data Elements Required for Vehicles Under Specified Conditions,
which included 24 elements that would have to be recorded (during the
interval/time and at the sample rate specified in that table) if the
vehicle is equipped with certain devices or is equipped to measure
certain elements. Table III, Recorded Data Element Format, included
proposed range, accuracy, precision, and filter class requirements for
each data element.
The NPRM also proposed a methodology for data capture under
specified conditions and circumstances (i.e., providing a hierarchy for
when new EDR data would overwrite existing data already stored in
memory). Simply put, EDRs are constantly monitoring a variety of
vehicle systems and parameters when the vehicle is in operation, but
the devices only have a limited amount of short-term (volatile) memory
and long-term (non-volatile) memory available for recording for these
[[Page 51000]]
purposes. So when vehicle manufacturers develop EDRs, they must make
judgments as to which data are the most important to be captured and
recorded (e.g., events surrounding the deployment of an air bag are
generally regarded as very important). Frequently, data stored in non-
volatile memory are over-written (replaced) or deleted. The NPRM's
proposed provisions related to data capture were intended to ensure
that EDRs not only capture data according to a uniform methodology, but
also that the methodology maximizes the generation of data suitable for
the agency's safety purposes.
Because data standardization is only beneficial if the data can be
retrieved and used, the agency decided to address the issue of data
retrievability as part of our rulemaking. The NPRM also proposed to
require vehicle manufacturers to submit sufficient non-proprietary
technical information to the public docket as would permit third
parties to manufacture a device capable of accessing, interpreting, and
converting the data stored in the EDR. Under the proposal, such
information would be required to be submitted to the docket not later
than 90 days prior to the start of production of the EDR-equipped
vehicle makes and models to which the information relates, and vehicle
manufacturers would be required to keep that information updated, by
providing information not later than 90 days prior to making any
changes that would make the previously submitted information no longer
valid. However, as discussed in the NPRM, our proposal offered one
possible way to handle the data retrievability issue, and we sought
comment on alternative approaches.
In addition, the NPRM proposed survivability requirements for EDR
data when the vehicle is crash tested under existing testing
requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) Nos. 208,
Occupant Crash Protection, 214, Side Impact Protection, and 301, Fuel
System Integrity, and it also proposed to require that the data be
retrievable by the methodology specified by the vehicle manufacturer
for not less than 30 days after the test and without external power.
Finally, the NPRM proposed a specific owner's manual statement
related to EDRs that would make members of the public aware when their
vehicle is equipped with an EDR and also explain the intended purpose
of the EDR and how it operates.
C. Requirements of the Final Rule
After careful consideration of the public comments on the NPRM, we
are promulgating this final rule to establish a regulation for
voluntarily-installed EDRs in order to standardize EDR data. The
approach of this final rule is generally consistent with that of the
NPRM, although we have further tailored the requirements of the
regulation to advance the stated purposes of this rulemaking without
requiring substantial costs or impeding the technological development
of EDRs. We believe that with certain modest modifications, many
current EDR systems can meet our goals of facilitating ACN and
improving crash reconstructions.
In overview, the final rule specifies uniform, national
requirements for light vehicles voluntarily equipped with EDRs,
including the collection, storage, and retrievability of onboard motor
vehicle crash event data. It also specifies requirements for vehicle
manufacturers to make tools and/or methods commercially available so
that authorized crash investigators and researchers are able to
retrieve data from such EDRs.
Specifically, the regulation applies to passenger cars,
multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses with a gross vehicle
weight rating (GVWR) of 3,855 kg (8,500 pounds) or less and an unloaded
vehicle weight of 2,495 kg (5,500 pounds) or less, except for walk-in
van-type trucks or vehicles designed to be sold exclusively to the U.S.
Postal Service, that are equipped with an event data recorder and to
manufacturers of these vehicles. Subject to an exception for final-
stage manufacturers and alterers discussed below, compliance with the
requirements of the final rule commences for covered vehicles
manufactured on or after September 1, 2010. The final rule is intended
to be technology-neutral, so as to permit compliance with any available
EDR technology that meets the specified performance requirements.
The following points highlight the key provisions of the final
rule:
Each vehicle equipped with an EDR must record all of the
data elements listed in Table I, during the interval/time and at the
sample rate specified in that table. There are 15 required data
elements (see paragraph 563.7(a), Table I). Examples of these data
elements are ``delta-V, longitudinal,'' ``maximum delta-V,
longitudinal,'' ``speed, vehicle indicated,'' and ``safety belt status,
driver.''
Each vehicle equipped with an EDR that records any of the
data elements listed in Table II identified as if recorded (most
elements in that table) must capture and record that information
according to the interval/time and at the sample rate specified in that
table. Data elements listed in Table II as ``if equipped'' (i.e.,
``frontal air bag deployment, time to nth stage, driver''
and ``frontal air bag deployment, time to nth stage, right
front passenger'') must record the specified information if they are
equipped with the relevant item, even if they are not presently doing
so.\3\ There are 30 data elements included in Table II (see paragraph
563.7(b), Table II). Examples of these data elements are ``lateral
acceleration,'' ``longitudinal acceleration,'' ``frontal air bag
suppression switch status, right front passenger (on, off, or auto),
and safety belt status, right front passenger (buckled, not buckled).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The ``frontal air bag deployment, time to n\th\ stage'' data
elements provide critical timing data for vehicles equipped with
multi-stage air bags, which will help in assessing whether an air
bag is deploying correctly during a crash (i.e., whether the sensors
are functioning properly). In drafting this final rule, we had
considered including these two elements as required elements under
Table I, but we recognized that not all vehicles are equipped with
multi-stage air bags. Thus, by including these elements in Table II
and requiring recording of that information if the vehicle is so
equipped, we are, in effect, requiring this data from all vehicles
equipped with an EDR and multi-stage air bags.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The data elements required to be collected by the EDR
pursuant to Tables I and II, as applicable, must be recorded in
accordance with the range, accuracy, and resolution requirements
specified in Table III, Recorded Data Element Format (see paragraph
563.8(a), Table III).
For EDRs that record acceleration, the longitudinal and
lateral acceleration time-history data must be filtered in accordance
with the filter class specified in Table III (i.e., Society of
Automotive Engineers (SAE) Recommended Practice J211-1, March 1995,
``Instrumentation For Impact Test--Part 1--Electronic Instrumentation''
(SAE J211-1, Class 60), which the regulation incorporates by reference
(see paragraph 563.8(b)). Such filtering may be done during collection
or post-processing.
The EDR must collect and store data elements for events in
accordance with the following conditions and circumstances as specified
in paragraph 563.9:
(1) In an air bag deployment crash, the data recorded from any
previous crash must be deleted; the data related to the deployment must
be recorded, and the memory must be locked in order to prevent any
future overwriting of these data.
[[Page 51001]]
(2) In an air bag non-deployment crash that meets the trigger
threshold, all previously recorded data in the EDR's memory must be
deleted from the EDR's memory, and the current data (up to two events)
must be recorded.
In order to ensure the survivability of EDR data in most
crashes, the EDR is tested in conjunction with crash tests already
required under FMVSS No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, and FMVSS No.
214, Side Impact Protection (see paragraph 563.10). Except for elements
discussed below, the data elements required under Tables I and II must
be recorded in a specified format, must exist at the completion of the
crash test, and must be retrievable by a methodology specified by the
vehicle manufacturer for not less than 10 days after the test.
The EDR is not required to meet the above survivability
requirements for the following data elements: (1) ``Engine throttle, %
full,'' (2) ``service brake, on/off,'' and (3) ``engine RPM.'' These
elements have been excluded from these requirements because vehicles
are crash tested without the engine running for safety reasons, so the
EDR would not be able to record the above data elements under those
circumstances.
For vehicles equipped with an EDR, vehicle manufacturers
must include a specified statement in the owner's manual to make the
operator aware of the presence, function, and capabilities of the EDR.
In order to ensure the retrievability of EDR data, each
vehicle manufacturer that installs EDRs must ensure by licensing
agreement or other means that the necessary tool(s) are commercially
available for downloading the required EDR data. The tool must be
commercially available not later than 90 days after the first sale of
the vehicle for purposes other than resale.
D. Lead Time
In order to limit the transition costs associated with the
standardization of EDR data, we sought in the NPRM to provide adequate
lead time to manufacturers to enable them to incorporate necessary
changes as part of their routine production cycles. To that end, the
NPRM proposed a compliance date of September 1, 2008 for the EDR
regulation. However, vehicle manufacturers commented that the lead time
in the proposed rule would be inadequate to allow manufacturers to
incorporate the necessary changes as part of their regular production
cycle. Those commenters argued that a longer lead time is needed to
minimize the costs and burdens associated with the EDR rule,
particularly for those manufacturers which have already incorporated
EDRs in a large proportion of their fleets.
After carefully considering the public comments on lead time, we
have decided to require covered vehicles manufactured on or after
September 1, 2010 to comply with the requirements of this final rule,
subject to the exception below. Again, it is our intention to limit the
costs associated with this final rule for the standardization of EDR
data, including implications associated with new definitions, new pre-
crash data collection, data download strategies, and data element costs
associated with meeting the range and accuracy requirements. We believe
that a lead time in excess of four years should prove adequate for all
vehicle manufacturers and all vehicle lines, without the need for a
phase-in. Vehicle manufacturers may voluntarily comply with these
requirements prior to this date.
Consistent with the policy set forth in NHTSA's February 14, 2005
final rule on certification requirements under Federal motor vehicle
safety standards for vehicles built in two or more stages and altered
vehicles (70 FR 7414), we are providing final-stage manufacturers and
alterers that produce vehicles covered by this regulation with an extra
year to comply. Accordingly, these manufacturers must meet the
requirements of this final rule for vehicles manufactured on or after
September 1, 2011. However, final-stage manufacturers and alterers may
voluntarily comply with the requirements of the regulation prior to
this date.
E. Differences Between the Final Rule and the Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking
As noted above, NHTSA has decided to issue the present final rule
to standardize EDR data in order to further our stated purposes of
ensuring that EDRs record the data necessary for effective
implementation of ACN, crash investigations, and analysis of safety
equipment performance. In order to achieve these objectives (and to
garner the derivative benefits that EDR-generated data may provide in
terms of safer vehicle designs), we have largely retained the general
approach presented in the NPRM. However, after further study and a
careful review of the public comments, we have decided to make a number
of modifications as part of the final rule in order to better reflect
the current state of EDR technology and the data elements (including
form and format) that will meet our research and policy objectives in a
manner that is both effective and practicable.
The main differences between the NPRM and the final rule involve a
change in the definition of ``event data recorder,'' selection of data
elements (i.e., which elements are required), changes to the range/
accuracy/resolution requirements, modification of the test requirements
related to EDR survivability, and extension of lead time for
implementing the regulation. A number of minor technical modifications
are also incorporated in the final rule in response to public comments
on the NPRM. All of these changes and their rationale are discussed
fully in the balance of this document. However, the following points
briefly describe the main differences between the NPRM and this final
rule.
In the NPRM, the term ``event data recorder'' was defined
as ``a device or function in a vehicle that records any vehicle or
occupant-based data just prior to or during a crash, such that the data
can be retrieved after the crash. For purposes of this definition,
vehicle or occupant-based data include any of the data elements listed
in Table I of this part.'' However, several commenters stated that
under this definition, virtually all vehicles would be considered to
have an EDR, because most vehicles capture freeze-frame data required
for internal processing; therefore, commenters argued that the proposed
definition is overly broad (i.e., covering vehicles not equipped with a
true EDR) and would create a de facto mandate for EDRs, contrary to the
agency's expressed intent. Therefore, in this final rule, we have
revised the definition of ``event data recorder'' to read as follows:
``a device or function in a vehicle that records the vehicle's dynamic,
time-series data during the time period just prior to a crash event
(e.g., vehicle speed vs. time) or during a crash event (e.g., delta-V
vs. time), intended for retrieval after the crash event. For the
purposes of this definition, the event data do not include audio and
video data.''
In the final rule, we have decided to make certain
modifications to the proposed tables of EDR data elements. Table I,
Data Elements Required For All Vehicles Equipped With an EDR, has been
amended by deleting five data elements (i.e., (1) longitudinal
acceleration (moved to Table II); (2) engine RPM (moved to Table II);
(3) frontal air bag deployment level, driver; (4) frontal air bag
deployment level, right front passenger, and (5) time from event 2 to
3) and by adding two data
[[Page 51002]]
elements (i.e., (1) time, maximum delta-V, and (2) delta-V,
longitudinal).
Table II, Data Elements Required for Vehicles under Specified
Conditions, has been modified in two ways from the NPRM. First, the
data elements now listed in Table II as ``if recorded'' will be
required only if the data elements are recorded by the EDR (i.e.,
stored in non-volatile memory as would permit later retrieval), rather
than the NPRM's approach which would have required those elements if
the vehicle were equipped to measure those elements. However, for the
final rule's data elements listed in Table II as ``if equipped,'' a
manufacturer's EDRs must record the specified information, even if its
current EDRs are not doing so.
Furthermore, Table II has been amended by adding six data elements
(i.e., Table II includes four new elements: (1) Lateral delta-V; (2)
lateral cumulative maximum delta-V; (3) time to cumulative maximum
lateral delta-V, and (4) time to cumulative maximum resultant delta-V.
In addition, as indicated above, two items have been moved from Table I
to Table II: (1) Longitudinal acceleration; and (2) engine RPM.).
In the NPRM, we proposed a definition for ``trigger
threshold,'' the point at which a recordable event is recognized by the
EDR, as a ``change in vehicle velocity * * * that equals or exceeds 0.8
km/h within a 20 ms interval.'' That definition encompassed movement in
either a longitudinal or lateral direction.
In the final rule, we decided to change the definition of ``trigger
threshold'' for the longitudinal direction to ``a change in vehicle
velocity * * * that equals or exceeds 8 km/h within a 150 ms
interval.'' For vehicles whose EDRs measure lateral delta-V or lateral
acceleration, we are using the same trigger threshold. In the final
rule, we have changed the definition of ``time zero'' to account for
different EDR crash detection strategies (i.e., using a ``wake-up''
time for EDRs that wake up just as a crash starts, or a change in
velocity over a short period for EDRs that are continuously running).
We have also added a new definition for ``end of event time.'' ``Time
zero'' and ``end of event time'' are defined in a manner consistent
with SAE J1698.
In the final rule, we have changed our approach in terms
of the type of data that an EDR may capture to assess crash severity.
Specifically, the NPRM proposed to require EDRs to measure vehicle
acceleration, but the final rule requires the EDR to record delta-V.
However, if the EDR records acceleration data in non-volatile memory,
that information must also be captured and recorded under the final
rule.
As part of the final rule, the agency has decided to
reduce the number of events that must be recorded in a multi-event
crash from three (as proposed in the NPRM) to two.
For each of the proposed data elements (when applicable),
the NPRM specified a recording interval and sampling rate in order to
standardize EDR data across the spectrum of new light vehicles. We have
decreased the pre-crash recording interval from 8 seconds prior to the
crash, as proposed in the NPRM, to 5 seconds prior to the crash, and we
have reduced the amount of time allocated for collecting crash data
from 0.5 second, as proposed in the NPRM, to 0.25 second in this final
rule.
The final rule has modified the NPRM s data format
requirements, which proposed to require covered data elements to be
recorded in accordance with the range, accuracy, precision, and filter
class specified in Table III, Recorded Data Element Format, where
applicable. The major changes were: (1) To reduce the maximum range for
acceleration measurements from 100 G maximum, as proposed in the NPRM,
to 50 G maximum, and (2) to reduce the required accuracy of these same
devices (and the data generated therefrom) from within 1
percent, as proposed in the NPRM, to within 5 percent.
After requesting comments on alternate approaches in the
NPRM, the agency has adopted a different approach for ensuring that
manufacturers make sufficient information available to permit EDR data
to be downloaded by potential users. The NPRM proposed to require
vehicle manufacturers make publicly available sufficient information to
permit third parties to build a retrieval tool for EDR data by
submitting such materials to the NHTSA Docket (and keeping such
information updated). However, in the final rule, we have decided,
consistent with manufacturers' comments, to require manufacturers to
ensure by licensing agreement or other means that retrieval tools for
EDR data are commercially available.
In the NPRM, we proposed to require manufacturers to send
detailed information on an ongoing basis to the agency about retrieval
tools for EDR data. However, in the final rule, we have decided to
require vehicle manufacturers to ensure that EDR retrieval tools are
commercially available, something which manufacturers may accomplish
either by producing the tools themselves or working directly with their
suppliers through licensing agreements. Accordingly, the need for
reports to the agency, as contemplated in the NPRM, no longer exists.
The final rule clarifies that EDR survivability testing
will be conducted without the engine running, in order to prevent a
potentially hazardous situation for testing personnel and facilities.
The final rule specifies that the ``engine throttle,'' ``service brake,
on/off,'' and (3) ``engine RPM'' data elements are not required to be
recorded as part of survivability testing. While we are retaining the
general approach for survivability testing, we are decreasing the
number of tests required to demonstrate survivability. Under the NPRM,
we proposed using FMVSS Nos. 208 (frontal), 214 (side), and 301 (rear)
tests, but in the final rule, we have decided to delete the requirement
for the Standard No. 301 test.
We have decided as part of the final rule to extend the
lead time for compliance by covered vehicles by two years, until
September 1, 2010. In addition, the final rule sets the compliance date
for final-stage manufacturers and alterers at one year beyond the
compliance deadline for other manufacturers (i.e., September 1, 2011).
F. Impacts of the Final Rule
It is difficult for the agency to quantify the benefits expected to
result from this final rule for standardization of EDR data. That is
because the EDR devices themselves are not designed to be systems for
crash avoidance or crashworthiness, but instead they offer an important
tool to enable better EMS response and to better understand crashes and
crash-related events. However, it is possible to describe the benefits
of EDRs in qualitative terms.
To the extent that EDR data are compatible with developing ACN and
e-911 systems, emergency medical personnel are likely to arrive at a
crash site better informed and thus better prepared to deal with the
injuries they encounter. Because expedient and appropriate post-crash
medical care is often critical to achieving the best possible outcome
for the injured person, we believe that EDR data have the potential to
make a positive contribution in this area.
We also believe that EDRs can provide important benefits by giving
researchers a relatively inexpensive way of obtaining higher quality
data and thus a more accurate and detailed understanding of the
circumstances surrounding crashes, including how the vehicles and their
safety systems performed. In many cases, such
[[Page 51003]]
information may be derived from crash reconstructions, but such
measurements tend to be reasoned estimates, as compared to the directly
measured data provided by the EDR. There is certain information, such
as how the air bag deployed (e.g., low level or high level) or when it
deployed, that cannot be determined without an EDR. To the extent that
EDRs help researchers and policymakers to better understand the events
surrounding crashes, NHTSA and vehicle manufacturers will be better
able to develop effective safety countermeasures as reflected in
Federal motor vehicle safety standards and new vehicle designs.
In sum, we believe that having a uniform and standardized data set
for EDRs will increase the compatibility, comparability, and overall
usefulness of EDR data, which will benefit the public directly through
the availability of ACN and e-911, and indirectly through improved
crash information for research and regulatory efforts.
In terms of costs, we believe that the costs of this final rule
should be minimal, averaging up to $0.17 per vehicle. Several factors
contribute to this result. First, we estimate that about 64 percent of
new light vehicles in 2005 are already equipped with EDRs, which have
been provided by adding the EDR capability to the vehicles' air bag
control systems. Thus, EDRs largely capture information that is already
being processed by the vehicle, so EDRs are not responsible for the
much higher costs of sensing much of the data in the first place.
Therefore, the costs of this final rule reflect the incremental costs
for vehicles voluntarily equipped with EDRs to comply with the
requirements of the regulation.
Second, the agency has sought to limit the number of EDR data
elements and associated requirements to the minimum necessary to
achieve our stated purposes. We have determined that the industry's
current state-of-the-art largely meets our purposes, so we have found
it generally unnecessary to specify requirements for additional sensors
or other hardware that would increase EDR costs appreciably. (The most
significant technology cost may involve the need to upgrade EDR memory
chips.) Furthermore, we expect that administrative costs and compliance
costs will be negligible.
In sum, for the 64 percent of new light vehicles already equipped
with an EDR, the estimated total cost to comply with the requirements
of this final rule (i.e., Table I data elements) will range up to $1.7
million. If we were to assume that all 15.5 million new light vehicles
were equipped with EDRs, the estimated total cost will range up to
$10.9 million.
II. Background
A. Overview of EDR Technology
Event data recorders capture vehicle crash information.\4\ Basic
EDRs capture only vehicle acceleration/deceleration data, while more
sophisticated EDRs capture these data plus a host of complementary
data, such as driver inputs (e.g., braking and steering) and the status
of vehicle safety systems (e.g., seatbelt pretensioners).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The term ``EDR'' can be used to describe many different
types of devices. For this final rule, the term EDR means a device
or function in a vehicle that captures the vehicle's dynamic, time-
series data during the time period just prior to a crash event
(e.g., vehicle speed vs. time) or during a crash event (e.g., delta-
V vs. time), such that the data can be retrieved after the crash
event. For the purposes of this definition, the event data do not
include audio and video data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EDR captures crash data by monitoring several of the vehicle's
systems, such as brakes, air bags, and seat belts. It continuously
captures and overwrites (erases) information on these systems so that a
record of the most recent period (up to a few seconds) is always
available. If an ``event'' occurs (i.e., a crash meeting a pre-
determined threshold of severity), then the EDR moves captured pre-
crash information (up to a few seconds) into its long-term memory. EDRs
also record (in long-term memory) data after the start of the crash (up
to a few seconds), such as the timing and manner of the deployment of
the air bags.
EDRs have been installed as standard equipment in most light motor
vehicles in recent years, particularly vehicles with air bags. We
estimate that 64 percent of model year (MY) 2005 passenger cars and
other light vehicles have some recording capability, and that more than
half record data elements such as crash pulse data. This is based on
manufacturer reports regarding their 2005 vehicles and then weighted
using 2003 corporate-level vehicle sales figures to determine a fleet
average.
B. Chronology of Events Relating to NHTSA's Consideration of EDRs
In 1991, NHTSA's Special Crash Investigations program first
utilized EDR information in an agency crash investigation. General
Motors, the vehicle's manufacturer, cooperated with the program.
Throughout the 1990s, NHTSA's SCI team utilized EDRs as one of their
investigative tools, and from 1991 through 1997, SCI worked with
manufacturers to read approximately 40 EDRs. Starting around 2000, the
collection of EDR data was automated, and to date, NHTSA's crash
investigation programs have collected information on about 2,700
crashes with EDR files.
The National Transportation Safety Board has also played a role in
agency efforts related to event data recorders. The NTSB has been
active in data recorders for a long time, first concentrating on
aircraft and later on railroads and ships. More recently, NTSB has been
active in the area of EDRs for highway vehicles. In 1997, the Safety
Board issued its first highway vehicle EDR-related Safety
Recommendation, H-97-18,\5\ to NHTSA, recommending that the agency
``pursue crash information gathering using EDRs.'' NTSB recommended
that the agency ``develop and implement, in conjunction with the
domestic and international automobile manufacturers, a plan to gather
better information on crash pulses and other crash parameters in actual
crashes, utilizing current or augmented crash sensing and recording
devices.'' NTSB subsequently closed this recommendation, citing NHTSA's
actions as acceptable. Also in that year, the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration (NASA) Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), in a study
conducted for NHTSA about advanced air bag technology, recommended that
the agency ``study the feasibility of installing and obtaining crash
data for safety analyses from crash recorders on vehicles.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ NTSB public forum on air bags and child passenger safety
(March 1997). See http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/1997/rp9701.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In early 1998, NHTSA's Office of Vehicle Safety Research formed an
EDR Working Group comprised of members from industry, academia, and
other government organizations. The working group was formed in
response to NHTSA's growing interest in EDRs, the NTSB's
recommendation, and interest from vehicle manufacturers. The group's
objective was to facilitate the collection and utilization of collision
avoidance and crashworthiness data from on-board EDRs. The NHTSA-
sponsored EDR Working Group published a final report on the results of
its deliberations in August 2001.\6\ The working group found that EDRs
have the potential to greatly improve highway safety, for example, by
improving occupant protection systems and improving the accuracy of
crash reconstruction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Event Data Recorders, Summary of Findings by the NHTSA EDR
Working Group, August 2001, Final Report (Docket No. NHTSA-99-5218-
9).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1999, NTSB issued a second set of recommendations to NHTSA
related to
[[Page 51004]]
EDRs (H-99-53 and H-99-54 \7\) recommending that the agency require
standardized EDRs to be installed on school buses and motor coaches. In
2000, NHTSA responded to these NTSB recommendations by sponsoring a
second working group related to EDRs--the NHTSA Truck & Bus EDR Working
Group. This Working Group collected facts related to use of EDRs in
trucks, school buses, and motor coaches--a natural follow-up activity
from the first working group that concentrated on light vehicles. The
final report of the NHTSA Truck and Bus EDR Working Group was published
in May 2002.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Bus Crashworthiness Issues, Highway Special Investigation
Report (NTSB/SIR-99/04) (Washington, DC (1999)). See http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/1999/sir9904.pdf.
\8\ Event Data Recorders, Summary of Findings by the NHTSA EDR
Working Group, May 2002, Final Report, Volume II, Supplemental
Findings for Trucks, Motor Coaches, and School Buses. (Docket No.
NHTSA-2000-7699-6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2004, NTSB issued EDR recommendations to NHTSA for a third time.
This set of recommendations was prompted by a crash that occurred at a
farmers' market in Santa Monica, CA, which resulted in multiple deaths.
In examining that crash, the Safety Board found that they could not
determine exactly what occurred with respect to the driver controls and
indicated that EDRs should be installed on all new vehicles.
Recommendation H-04-26 \9\ reads: ``Once standards for event data
recorders are developed, require their installation in all newly
manufactured light-duty vehicles.'' In 2005, NHTSA sent a letter to the
Safety Board asking them to reconsider their recommendation, indicating
that many new cars and light trucks are already equipped with EDRs and
that standardization of installed EDRs is the main issue, which is
being addressed by this final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Rear-End Collision and Subsequent Vehicle Intrusion into
Pedestrian Space at Certified Farmers' Market Santa Monica,
California (July 16, 2003). See http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/2004/har0404.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For further information, NHTSA has developed a website about
highway-based EDRs located at the following address: http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/edr-site/index.html.
C. Petitions for Rulemaking
1. Petitions From Mr. Price T. Bingham and Ms. Marie E. Birnbaum
In the late 1990s, the agency denied two petitions for rulemaking
asking us to require the installation of EDRs in new motor vehicles
(see 63 FR 60270 (November 9, 1998) and 64 FR 29616 (June 2, 1999)).
The first petition, submitted by Mr. Price T. Bingham,\10\ a
private individual, asked the agency to initiate rulemaking to require
air bag sensors to record data during a crash so that it could later be
read by crash investigators. The petitioner cited a concern about air
bag deployments that might be ``spontaneous,'' but he did not limit the
petition to that issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Docket No. NHTSA-1998-4368-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The second petition, submitted by Ms. Marie E. Birnbaum,\11\ also a
private individual, asked us to initiate rulemaking to require
passenger cars and light trucks to be equipped with ``black boxes''
(i.e., EDRs) analogous to those found on commercial aircraft.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Docket No. NHTSA-1998-4367-22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In responding to these petitions, NHTSA acknowledged that EDRs
could provide valuable information useful for analyzing crashes and
improving motor vehicle safety. However, the agency decided to deny the
petitions because the motor vehicle industry was already voluntarily
moving in the direction recommended by the petitioners, and because the
agency believed ``this area presents some issues that are, at least for
the present time, best addressed in a non-regulatory context.'' \12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ 63 FR 60270, 60270 (Nov. 9, 1998) (Docket No. NHTSA-1998-
4672-1); 64 FR 29616, 29616 (June 2, 1999) (Docket No. NHTSA-1999-
5737-1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Petition From Dr. Ricardo Martinez
In October 2001, the agency received a petition \13\ from Dr.
Ricardo Martinez, President of Safety Intelligence Systems Corporation
and former Administrator of NHTSA, asking us to ``mandate the
collection and storage of onboard vehicle crash event data, in a
standardized data and content format and in a way that is retrievable
from the vehicle after the crash.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Docket No. NHTSA-2002-13546-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In his petition for rulemaking, Dr. Martinez argued that
understanding what happens in a crash is essential to preventing
injuries and deaths, and that EDRs would improve crash reconstruction
analysis. The petitioner also stated that current crash reconstruction
analysis is costly, time consuming, laborious, and often inaccurate.
According to Dr. Martinez, the increasing sophistication and decreasing
costs of information technology have created the opportunity to now
mandate the capture, storage, and retrieval of onboard crash data, and
a NHTSA rulemaking could greatly accelerate the development of ACN.
The petition from Dr. Martinez was submitted shortly after the
NHTSA EDR Working Group had published its final report. As discussed in
more detail in the next section of this document, in October 2002,
after the second working group had completed its work, we decided to
request public comments on what future role the agency should take
related to the continued development and installation of EDRs in motor
vehicles. We decided to respond to Dr. Martinez's petition after
considering those comments.
D. October 2002 Request for Comments
On October 11, 2002, NHTSA published a request for comments
concerning EDRs in the Federal Register (67 FR 63493).\14\ In that
document, the agency discussed its prior involvement concerning EDRs,
and it requested comments on what future role NHTSA should take related
to the continued development and installation of EDRs in motor
vehicles. The request for comments discussed a range of issues,
including safety benefits, technical issues, privacy issues, and the
role of the agency, and it also posed several questions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Docket No. NHTSA-2002-13546-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to this request, we received comments from light and
heavy vehicle manufacturers, equipment manufacturers, vehicle users,
the medical community, advocacy organizations, safety research
organizations, crash investigators, insurance companies, academics, and
government agencies. We also received comments from a number of private
individuals.
To summarize, these comments raised issues concerning the safety
benefits of EDRs (with most commenters suggesting EDRs will improve
vehicle safety), technical issues surrounding a potential rulemaking on
EDRs (such as the types of data elements to be collected, amount of
data to be recorded, and crash survivability of EDR data), potential
privacy issues associated with EDRs, NHTSA's role in the future of
EDRs, and public perception of EDRs.
After considering the comments and other information NHTSA had
gathered on EDRs, NHTSA decided to grant the Martinez petition in part
and commenced rulemaking.
III. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
A. Summary of the NPRM
On June 14, 2004, NHTSA published a NPRM in the Federal Register
(69 FR 32932)\15\ proposing to: (1) Require that EDRs voluntarily
installed in light vehicles record a minimum set of specified data
elements useful for crash investigations, analysis of safety equipment
performance, and automatic
[[Page 51005]]
collision notification systems; (2) specify requirements for data
format; (3) increase the survivability of the EDRs and their data by
requiring that the EDRs function during and after the front, side, and
rear vehicle crash tests specified in several Federal motor vehicle
safety standards; (4) require vehicle manufacturers to make publicly
available information for a download tool that would enable crash
investigators to retrieve data from the EDR; and (5) require vehicle
manufacturers to include a brief standardized statement in the owner's
manual indicating that the vehicle is equipped with an EDR and
describing purposes of that device.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Docket No. NHTSA-2004-18029-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA tentatively concluded that the proposed requirements would
help ensure that EDRs record, in a readily usable manner, the data
necessary for effective crash investigations, analysis of safety
equipment performance, and automatic crash notification systems. NHTSA
stated its belief that its proposal would help provide a better
understanding of the circumstances under which crashes and injuries
occur and would lead to derivative benefits, such as safer vehicle
designs.
In the NPRM, NHTSA responded to the Martinez petition \16\ for
rulemaking, which asked the agency to ``mandate the collection and
storage of onboard vehicle crash event data, in a standardized data and
content format and in a way that is retrievable from the vehicle after
the crash.'' The agency granted the petition in part, to the extent
that it proposed a regulation to specify standardized data content and
format for EDRs in a manner that is retrievable from a vehicle after a
crash.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Docket No. NHTSA-2002-13546-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, NHTSA denied the petition to the extent that the agency
did not propose to mandate EDRs. In the NPRM, the agency stated its
belief that a mandatory EDR rule was not the best approach at this
time, and we noted that the industry is continuing to move in the
direction of installing EDRs in an increasing percentage of new
vehicles. Further, the industry trend is toward designing EDRs to
include greater amounts of crash data. Given this trend, we did not
deem it necessary for us to propose to require the installation of
EDRs, but remained open to considering this in the future.
The NPRM also discussed other key issues including data elements to
be recorded, data standardization, data retrieval, crash survivability,
privacy, and lead time. The NPRM provided detailed tables of the data
elements to be recorded under the proposal and the relationship of the
data elements to the stated purposes of the rulemaking. While the NPRM
did propose specific technical requirements and specifications, NHTSA
requested comments on the proposed data elements, including whether the
list sufficiently covers technology that is likely to be in vehicles in
the next five to ten years.
In terms of data standardization, the NPRM proposed a standardized
format for each data element, specifying the corresponding recording
intervals/times, units of measurement, sampling rates, data range/
accuracy/precision requirements, and where appropriate, filter class.
However, the NPRM noted that there was currently not an industry
standard for EDR format.
The NPRM also solicited comments on EDR data retrieval.
Specifically, NHTSA sought alternative approaches to the data retrieval
requirements proposed in the NPRM, which would have required vehicle
manufacturers to submit specifications for accessing and retrieving the
stored EDR data and information in sufficient detail to permit
companies that manufacture diagnostic tools to develop and build
devices for accessing and retrieving the EDR's stored data.
Regarding the functioning of EDRs and crash survivability, the NPRM
proposed requirements for the EDR trigger threshold, EDR recording in
multi-event crashes, capture of EDR data, and the performance of EDRs
in crash tests.
The NPRM discussed privacy issues related to EDRs, but it also
noted that most privacy issues involve Federal and State laws separate
from NHTSA's primary statutory authority.
Finally, the NPRM discussed lead time for the regulation's proposed
compliance date. The NPRM proposed a compliance date of September 1,
2008, to permit manufacturers to make EDR-related design changes as a
part of their regular production cycle in order to minimize costs.
B. Summary of Public Comments to the NPRM
NHTSA received over 100 comments on the NPRM from automobile
manufacturers,\17\ motor vehicle equipment suppliers and
businesses,\18\ trade associations,\19\ advocacy and special interest
groups,\20\ and individuals. (All of the comments on the NPRM can be
reviewed in Docket No. NHTSA-2004-18029.) Commenters expressed a wide
range of views, with vehicle manufacturers, motor vehicle equipment
suppliers, and trade associations generally supporting the NPRM in
concept, while raising a number of significant issues and recommending
modifications. Special interest groups advocating highway safety
generally called for a more extensive regulation; for example, these
commenters asked NHTSA to require EDRs in all vehicles, to require more
data elements to be recorded, and/or to require uniform EDR data
retrieval so that first responders and other emergency personnel may
easily access EDR data. A number of individuals who commented on the
NPRM raised potential privacy concerns.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Comments were received from the following vehicle
manufacturers: (1) American Honda Motor Company (Honda); (2)
DaimlerChrysler, VSO (DaimlerChrysler); (3) Ford Motor Company
(Ford); (4) General Motors Corporation (GM); (5) Hyundai America
Technical Center, Inc. (Hyundai and Kia); (6) Mitsubishi Motors R &
D of America, Inc. (Mitsubishi); (7) Nissan North American, Inc.
(Nissan); (8) Porsche Cars North American, Inc. (Porsche); (9)
Subaru of America, Inc. (Subaru); and (10) Toyota Motor North
America, Inc. (Toyota).
\18\ Comments were received from the following motor vehicle
equipment suppliers and other businesses: (1) Bendix Commercial
Vehicle Systems, L.L.C. (Bendix); (2) Delphi; (3) Gelco Corporation
d/b/a GE Fleet Services (Gelco); (4) Kast, GmbH (Kast); (5) Injury
Sciences, L.L.C. (Injury Sciences); (6) Racing Information Systems;
(7) Safety Intelligence Systems Corporation (SISC); (8) Siemens VDO
Automotive, AG (Siemens); (9) TRW Automotive (TRW); and (10) Wyle
Laboratories, Inc. (Wyle Laboratories).
\19\ Comments were received from the following trade
associations: (1) Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (Alliance);
(2) American Trucking Association (ATA); (3) Association of
International Automobile Manufacturers, Inc.--Technical Affairs
Committee (AIAM); (4) National Automobile Dealers Association
(NADA); (5) Property Casualty Insurers Association of America
(PCIAA); and (6) Specialty Equipment Market Association (SEMA).
\20\ Comments were received from the following advocacy (and
other) groups: (1) Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety
(Advocates); (2) Albemarle County Police Department; (3) American
Automobile Association (AAA); (4) Canada Safety Council; (5)
Children's Hospital of Philadelphia; (6) Electronic Privacy
Information Center (EPIC); (7) European Commission; (8) Garthe
Associates (Garthe); (9) Institute of Electrical and Electronics
Engineers Vehicular Technology Society (IEEE-VTS); (10) Insurance
Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS); (11) National Motorist
Association; (12) National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB); (13)
Public Citizen; and (14) Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following overview of the public comments reflects the key
issues raised by the commenters, including whether the EDR rule should
be mandatory, the number and type of data elements to be recorded, EDR
data standardization requirements, EDR data retrieval and whether to
require a standardized data retrieval tool/universal interface, and EDR
crash survivability. Other commenters addressed the proposed owner's
manual disclosure statement, potential privacy concerns, lead time, and
costs. A more in-depth analysis of
[[Page 51006]]
comments along with the agency's response follows in section IV.B of
this document.
Whether NHTSA Should Require EDRs
In their comments, most automobile manufacturers supported the EDR
standardization requirements for voluntarily-installed EDRs. However,
GM, Ford, some industry associations, and most advocacy and special
interest groups, urged NHTSA to require EDRs to be installed in all new
vehicles. Commenters as diverse as GM and Public Citizen urged
mandatory installation of EDRs. Arguments for why installation should
be mandatory varied, but included concerns that manufacturers will opt
out under a voluntary installation approach, that standardization
requirements for voluntary-installed EDRs will discourage EDR
installation, and that voluntary installation would take many years to
build up sufficient information for useful study.
Number and Types of Required Data Elements
The NPRM separated EDR data elements into two categories. The first
category consisted of a set of data elements that must be recorded if
an automobile manufacturer currently uses an EDR for any one data
element (i.e., ``required'' data elements). The second category
consisted of data elements that must be recorded only if the vehicle is
equipped with a specified system or sensing capability (i.e., ``if
equipped'' data elements). The NPRM listed 18 required data elements
and an additional 24 ``if equipped'' data elements.
Overall, automobile manufacturers, and other commenters connected
to the automotive industry, stated their belief that the number of
proposed required data elements is excessive in light of NHTSA's stated
purposes. However, manufacturers differed in their assessment as to
which of the data elements should be required to be recorded and their
rationale why. The manufacturers agreed that the number of data
elements should be reduced due to: (1) The estimated (excessive) cost
of the EDR proposal; (2) limitations in memory and microprocessing
capability of EDRs; (3) the potential to inhibit collection of more
useful data; and (4) the desire to avoid complete electrical redesigns.
In contrast, highway safety advocacy groups, such as Public Citizen
and Advocates, suggested that the number of required elements is
insufficient. This group of commenters generally argued that more data
elements should be recorded in order to: (1) Provide additional data
contribution for a more definitive crash causation evaluation; (2)
address equipment likely to be used in the future; and/or (3) encourage
uniformity. Some commenters, including Injury Sciences and Public
Citizen, suggested adding the Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) as a
recorded data element. Still others commented that certain data
elements in the ``if equipped'' category should be moved to the
``required'' category or vice versa.
EDR Data Standardization
The NPRM proposed specific technical specifications for each data
element, including sampling rates and recording intervals, data
standardization requirements, and data retrieval requirements. The
commenters on this issue, mostly from the automobile industry, raised
concerns about the proposed recording frequency and sampling rates,
especially regarding the amount of microprocessing and memory required
to process and store the proposed EDR data. According to the
manufacturers, the increase in microprocessing and memory capabilities
that would be required to comply with the proposed rule would be more
costly than the agency anticipated. Therefore, manufacturers
recommended alternative sampling rates and recording intervals that
they believe would be less expensive. Automotive industry commenters
also recommended other technical adjustments to the proposed recording
requirements. They also generally disagreed with the proposed multiple-
event recording requirement, with most stating that it is unnecessary
and not current industry practice.
Automobile manufacturers generally commented that the range,
accuracy, and precision specifications contained in the NPRM should not
be included in the final rule because the proposed parameters are
beyond what is currently utilized in the state-of-the-art EDRs and the
provisions are not necessary to achieve the agency's goals. Other
commenters agreed with the concept of standardization, but suggested
that it be accomplished in another manner, such as leaving it to the
discretion of the manufacturers for optimal restraint system
performance or applying SAE J1698.
Highway safety advocates commented that sampling rates and
recording intervals should be of sufficient duration to record the full
crash event, especially for ``rollover'' crashes.
EDR Data Retrieval and Whether To Require a Standardized Data Retrieval
Tool
With regard to data retrieval requirements, most manufacturers
objected to furnishing non-proprietary technical specifications to
NHTSA and offered alternative approaches for retrieving EDR data, such
as through licensing agreements or making retrieval tools available to
the public at a reasonable price. Highway safety advocacy groups argued
that NHTSA should require standardization of data retrieval methods,
that first responders should have access to EDR data, and that NHTSA
should require a uniform architecture for data retrieval with a
standardized interface location.
EDR Survivability and Crash Test Performance Requirements
The NPRM proposed that EDR data must exist upon completion of each
crash test and be retrievable by a methodology specified by the vehicle
manufacturer for not less than 30 days after the test and without
external power. Several automobile manufacturers commented that the
proposed crash test requirement is impracticable because they believe
it would require tests to be performed with engines running and various
vehicle systems activated, which would cause a danger to test
personnel. As an alternative, commenters suggested a simulated
laboratory test. Automobile manufacturers commented that the proposed
rule would greatly increase testing costs. There were also comments on
whether an alternative power source would be required to meet the 30-
day provision in Sec. 563.10(d). Other commenters, including NTSB and
Public Citizen commented that NHTSA should require that EDR data
survive fire, fluid immersion, and severe crashes.
Other Issues
The NPRM proposed a compliance date of September 1, 2008, for the
EDR regulation. Nearly all commenters, especially automobile
manufacturers, believed that the agency underestimated the amount of
time needed to meet the requirements of the proposed rule. Several
manufacturers suggested that, as part of the final rule, the agency
should provide a phase-in (e.g., a four-year phase-in beginning in
2008).
In order to educate the public about EDRs and to gain public
acceptance for use in passenger vehicles, the NPRM proposed that
vehicles equipped with an EDR must also include a specified statement
in the owner's manual. This
[[Page 51007]]
statement would inform the vehicle owner about the presence of the EDR
and its purposes. Most commenters, including automobile manufacturers
and privacy advocates, expressed support for a disclosure statement.
However, several commenters (including automobile manufacturers, EPIC,
and individuals) suggested alternative language. Comments concerning
the disclosure statement ranged from concerns about privacy and
ownership of the EDR data to preemption and State disclosure
requirements.
Commenters, especially individuals, raised concerns about privacy.
In the NPRM, we addressed privacy issues, stating our position that
NHTSA's use of the data collected from EDRs would not raise privacy
concerns. NHTSA obtains the owner's consent for collecting and using
EDR data and carefully protects any information that could potentially
be used to identify an individual. In the context of EDRs, the
information in question that may be linked to an individual is the
vehicle identification number (VIN), which is collected at the time EDR
information is downloaded. The following discussion explains why it is
necessary for the agency to collect VIN information in connection with
EDRs, how such information is used by the agency, and the safeguards
the agency takes related to the release of such information.
VIN information (e.g., relevant to the make/model in question) is
necessary to download and process the EDR data, because the commercial
EDR download tool requires the VIN to be inputted into the program in
order to link the EDR file with data to ensure proper engineering
output. Without VIN input, similar data may mean different things
depending on the vehicle from which it comes.
This final rule does not require EDRs to record VIN information.
However, the full VIN of a vehicle must be inputted into current EDR
extraction tools as a key to ensure proper conversion of the electronic
EDR data to a usable format. The full VIN is needed in order to account
for running changes that may occur during a particular model year,
thereby rendering it infeasible to use a shortened VIN. We note that
such VIN information is normally available through other means during
the course of crash reconstruction (i.e., through reading the VIN label
on the vehicle itself). Further, other parties, such as law
enforcement, could combine the EDR data with the type of personally
identifying data routinely acquired during a crash investigation.
In terms of the use of EDR data, the agency takes the EDR-generated
information that it collects and incorporates the information into
large crash-related databases in order to gain a more comprehensive
understanding of certain crash events; the information contained in
these databases is not retrieved or retrievable by name or other
individual identifier.
The agency's rationale for protection of the VIN information
contained in EDRs is as follows. By way of background, the VIN data
identify the vehicle itself and do not specifically provide name,
address, or other personal identifier information on an individual.
Furthermore, EDR data alone cannot confirm exactly who was driving the
vehicle at any given time (e.g., vehicle owner or other individuals
(either with or without permission)). However, even though VIN
information is not a ``record'' \21\ or part of a ``system of records''
\22\ as those terms are defined under the Privacy Act, NHTSA has
nevertheless taken steps to prevent the release of VIN information,
because VIN information can be used in various commercially-available
programs to determine the identity of the current owner of a vehicle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ The Privacy Act of 1974 defines ``record'' as ``any item,
collection, or grouping of information about an individual that is
maintained by an agency, including but not limited to, his
education, financial transactions, medical history, and criminal or
employment history and that contains his name, or the identifying
number, symbol, or other identifying particular assigned to the
individual, such as a finger or voice print or a photograph.'' 5
U.S.C. 552(a)(4).
\22\ The Privacy Act defines ``system of records'' as ``a group
of any records under the control of any agency from which
information is retrieved by the name of the individual or by some
identifying number, symbol, or other identifying particular assigned
to the individual.'' 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a practical matter, information contained in these records that
has the potential indirectly to identify individuals is not made
public, except as specifically required by law. Furthermore, prior to
the release of information from databases containing EDR data (usually
aggregated reports), the agency strips out the last six characters of
the VIN (i.e., the portion that would allow identification of a
specific vehicle and, potentially by indirect means, the identity of
the vehicle's current owner). In light of the above, we believe that
the agency has taken adequate steps to ensure individual privacy vis-
[agrave]-vis its use of EDR data.
However, we recognized that there may be privacy issues associated
with EDRs related to the use of EDR data by entities other than NHTSA,
such as law enforcement and EMS personnel, other government entities,
and the automotive industry. Notwithstanding our extensive treatment of
the privacy issue, we still received comments from individuals who
believe that EDRs are an intrusion of their privacy because EDRs might
record aspects of their driving behavior (e.g., whether they are
speeding or not wearing a safety belt) that they do not want to be
known. Automobile manufacturers and highway safety groups commented
that the potential benefits of EDRs outweigh any privacy concerns.
In addition to lead time, privacy, and owner's manual disclosure
statement issues, commenters raised additional substantive issues
including cost, preemption, and inclusion of ACN as a goal of the EDR
rule.
Many commenters, mostly automobile manufacturers, believed that
NHTSA's cost estimates were significantly understated. According to
these commenters, the proposed requirements outlined in the NPRM would
contribute to higher costs because of the additional microprocessors
and memory needed to handle larger amounts of saved data. These
commenters also argued that the dynamic testing requirements would
increase costs along with the requirements of accuracy, range, and
precision, which they argued are in excess of current industry
practice.
Commenters requested that NHTSA specifically preempt inconsistent
State and local regulations related to EDRs. Automobile manufacturers
were concerned about the possibility of having to comply with
inconsistent State regulations, especially concerning owner's manual
disclosure statements and technical specifications of EDRs.
With respect to ACN as a stated goal of the EDR rule, commenters
associated with the automotive industry argued that this goal should be
removed, since the proposed rule would not require ACN or specifically
state that the rule will not limit the ability of manufacturers to
offer ACN.
Other, more specific and technical issues were raised by
commenters. These issues will be treated and addressed in section IV.B
of this notice.
IV. The Final Rule and Response to Public Comments
A. The Final Rule
1. Summary of the Requirements
After careful consideration of the public comments on the NPRM, we
are promulgating this final rule to establish a regulation for
voluntarily-installed EDRs in order to standardize EDR data. The
requirements of this regulation are tailored to advance the stated
purposes of this rulemaking without imposing unnecessary burdens or
unduly
[[Page 51008]]
impeding the future technological development of EDRs. In overview, the
final rule specifies uniform, national requirements for EDR-equipped
vehicles covered by the regulation, including the collection, storage,
and retrievability of onboard motor vehicle crash event data. It also
specifies requirements for vehicle manufacturers to make retrieval
tools and/or methods commercially available so that crash investigators
and researchers are able to retrieve data from EDRs.
Specifically, the regulation applies to passenger cars,
multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses with a GVWR of 3,855
kg (8,500 pounds) or less and an unloaded vehicle weight of 2,495 kg
(5,500 pounds) or less, except for walk-in van-type trucks or vehicles
designed to be sold exclusively to the U.S. Postal Service, that are
equipped with an event data recorder and to manufacturers of these
vehicles.\23\ Subject to an exception for final-stage manufacturers and
alterers discussed below, compliance with the requirements of the final
rule commences for covered vehicles manufactured on or after September
1, 2010. The final rule is intended to be technology-neutral, so as to
permit compliance with any available EDR technology that meets the
specified performance requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ These are the same applicability limits set for the air bag
requirements in frontal crashes in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standard No. 208.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following points highlight the key provisions of the final
rule:
Term ``event data recorder'' is defined as ``a device or
function in a vehicle that captures the vehicle s dynamic, time-series
data during the time period just prior to a crash event (e.g., vehicle
speed vs. time) or during a crash event (e.g., delta-V vs. time), such
that the data can be retrieved after the crash event. For the purposes
of this definition, the event data do not include audio and video
data.''
Each vehicle equipped with an EDR must record all of the
data elements listed in Table I, during the interval/time and at the
sample rate specified in that table. There are 15 required data
elements (see paragraph 563.7(a), Table I). Examples of these data
elements are ``delta-V, longitudinal,'' ``maximum delta-V,
longitudinal,'' ``speed, vehicle indicated,'' and ``safety belt status,
driver.''
Each vehicle equipped with an EDR that records any of the
data elements listed in Table II identified as ``if recorded'' (most
elements in that table) must capture and record that information
according to the interval/time and at the sample rate specified in that
table. Data elements listed in Table II as ``if equipped'' (i.e.,
``frontal air bag deployment, time to nth stage, driver'' and ``frontal
air bag deployment, time to nth stage, right front passenger'') must
record the specified information, even if they are not presently doing
so. (The ``frontal air bag deployment, time to nth stage'' data
elements provide critical timing data for vehicles equipped with multi-
stage air bags, which will help in assessing whether an air bag is
deploying correctly during a crash (i.e., whether the sensors are
functioning properly). In drafting this final rule, we had considered
including these two elements as required elements under Table I, but we
recognized that not all vehicles are equipped with multi-stage air
bags. Thus, by including these elements in Table II and requiring
recording of that information if the vehicle is so equipped, we are, in
effect, requiring this data from all vehicles equipped with an EDR and
multi-stage air bags.)
There are 30 data elements included in Table II (see paragraph
563.7(b), Table II). Examples of these data elements are ``lateral
acceleration,'' ``longitudinal acceleration,'' ``frontal air bag
suppression switch status, right front passenger (on, off, or auto),''
``frontal air bag deployment, time to nth stage, driver,'' and ``safety
belt status, right front passenger (buckled, not buckled).''
The data elements required to be collected by the EDR
pursuant to Tables I and II, as applicable, must be recorded in
accordance with the range, accuracy, and resolution requirements
specified in Table III, Recorded Data Element Format (see paragraph
563.8(a), Table III).
For EDRs that record acceleration, the longitudinal,
lateral, and normal acceleration time-history data must be filtered in
accordance with the filter class specified in Table III (i.e., SAE
J211-1, Class 60) (see paragraph 563.8(b)). Such filtering may be done
during collection or post-processing.
The EDR must collect and store data elements for events in
accordance with the following conditions and circumstances as specified
in paragraph 563.9:
(1) In an air bag deployment crash, the data recorded from any
previous crash must be deleted; the data related to the deployment must
be recorded, and the memory must be locked in order to prevent any
future overwriting of these data.
(2) In an air bag non-deployment crash that meets the trigger
threshold, all previously recorded data in the EDR's memory must be
deleted from the EDR's memory, and the current data (up to two events)
must be recorded.
In order to ensure that survivability of EDR data in most
crashes, the EDR is tested in conjunction with crash tests already
required under FMVSS No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, and FMVSS No.
214, Side Impact Protection (see paragraph 563.10). Except for the
elements discussed below, the data elements required under paragraph
563.7 must be recorded in the format specified by paragraph 563.8, must
exist at the completion of the crash test, and must be retrievable by
the methodology specified by the vehicle manufacturer (as required
under paragraph 563.12) for not less than 10 days after the test. The
``complete file recorded (yes, no)'' data element must read ``yes''
after the test.
The EDR need not meet the above survivability requirements for the
following data elements: (1) ``Engine throttle, % full,'' (2) ``service
brake, on/off,'' and (3) ``engine RPM.'' These elements have been
excluded from these requirements because vehicles are crash tested
without the engine running for safety reasons, so the EDR would not be
able to record the above data elements under those circumstances.
For vehicles equipped with an EDR, vehicle manufacturers
must include a specified statement in the owner's manual to make the
operator aware of the presence, function, and capabilities of the EDR
(see paragraph 563.11).
In order to ensure the retrievability of EDR data, each
vehicle manufacturer that installs EDRs must ensure by licensing
agreement or other means that retrieval tool(s) are commercially
available for downloading the required EDR data. The retrieval tool
must be commercially available not later than 90 days after the first
sale of the vehicle for purposes other than resale.
2. Lead Time
In order to minimize the costs associated with the standardization
of EDR data, we have stated our intention to provide adequate lead time
to manufacturers to enable them to incorporate necessary changes as
part of their routine production cycles. In the NPRM, we had proposed a
compliance date of September 1, 2008. However, in their comments on our
proposal, some manufacturers had argued that a longer lead time is
needed to make the necessary design and production changes. Others
requested a phase-in of the EDR requirements, which was characterized
as particularly important for manufacturers that already have a
[[Page 51009]]
significant portion of their fleet equipped with EDRs.
In light of the fact that installation of EDRs remains voluntary on
the part of vehicle manufacturers and our concomitant desire to
minimize costs, we have decided to adopt the recommendations of
commenters to provide vehicle manufacturers with additional lead time.
Accordingly, subject to the exception below, we have decided to require
covered vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2010 to comply
with the requirements of this final rule. We believe that lead time in
excess of four years, particularly given the revised technical
requirements, should prove adequate for all vehicle manufacturers and
all vehicle lines, without the need for a phase-in. Vehicle
manufacturers may voluntarily comply with these requirements prior to
this date.
Beyond the suggestions of the automobile manufacturers to increase
the lead time associated with this rule, NHTSA conducted its own
analysis of the technical changes needed to meet the standardization
requirements and specifications of this final rule. As discussed below,
we determined that the final rule will necessitate a number of design
and technical changes to current EDRs.
For example, current EDR systems have been designed independently
by the vehicle manufacturers, thereby resulting in differences in data
definitions. Thus, in implementing this final rule, manufacturers will
need to make technical changes to their systems to reflect
standardization in the data elements.
Further, we have added new definitions related to EDR operation
that will necessitate changes to EDRs. The ``trigger threshold''
required by this final rule is different than that which any vehicle
manufacturer currently utilizes. Generally, vehicle manufacturers use
wake-up levels to start collecting data, based upon vehicle
deceleration. However, our final rule specifies that data collection be
triggered by using change-in-velocity (delta-V) over a specified time
period, which will require algorithm development and possibly
additional non-volatile memory buffers to capture and analyze these
vehicle data. The two-event capture and recording requirement in the
final rule is also different from that which any vehicle manufacturer
currently uses. While some current EDRs do capture and record two
events, the data are not captured with standardized logic, as is
specified in the final rule (e.g., standardization of the calculation
of time between events). Another new requirement is that the EDR must
lock the file if an air bag deploys during an event; this requirement
is one that will need to be newly implemented by most of vehicle
manufacturers.
Another requirement in the final rule that is likely to necessitate
changes in EDRs is the requirement for the capture and recording of
pre-crash data. With the exception of GM and Toyota, no other vehicle
manufacturer captures and records pre-crash data that can be downloaded
using a commercially available tool. Ford is developing a pre-crash
data recording capability, but Ford is collecting those data in the
engine control module. All other vehicle manufacturers will need to
update their systems to achieve pre-crash data collection, which will
necessitate algorithm development and possibly additional non-volatile
memory to continuously capture and hold these data until an event
occurs. Further, the sampling of the pre-crash data will need to be
standardized to two samples per second, in order to meet the
requirements of the final rule. To our knowledge, no vehicle
manufacturer currently collects pre-crash data at this sample rate
(e.g., most GM and Toyota vehicles capture data at one sample per
second during the interval specified in the final rule). Again,
updating these systems in this fashion will require additional
algorithm development and possible additional non-volatile memory.
In addition, we anticipate that development of a turnkey operation
for downloading EDR data will take significant time to accomplish.
Vehicle manufacturers will need time to develop their licensed partner
relationships for production of download tools.
Finally, we note that the latest version of GM's EDR (e.g., ones
used in the 2004 Malibu) does not capture and record delta-V data
within the accuracy requirement specified in the final rule. In two
tests performed by IIHS, which shared results with NHTSA for use in a
paper for presentation at an International Technical Conference on the
Enhanced Safety of Vehicles (ESV), the delta-Vs recorded by the EDR
were at or outside the accuracy specifications of the final rule.\24\
Additionally, we note that GM has previously reported that the current
generation of EDRs have data resolution and accuracy outside the levels
specified in the final rule.\25\ In sum, sufficient lead time will be
required for vehicle manufacturers to make the changes necessitated by
the final rule without incurring significant additional costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ Niehoff, Peter, et al., Evaluation of Event Data Recorders
in Full Systems Crash Tests, ESV Paper No. 05-0271 (2005).
\25\ ``Recording Automotive Crash Event Data,'' Chidester,
Hinch, Mercer & Schultz, NTSB (1999). See http://www.ntsb.gov/events/symp_rec/proceedings/authors/chidester.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consistent with the policy set forth in NHTSA's February 14, 2005
final rule on certification requirements under Federal motor vehicle
safety standards for vehicles built in two or more stages and altered
vehicles (70 FR 7414), final-stage manufacturers and alterers of
covered vehicles must comply with the requirements of this final rule
for vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2011. However,
final-stage manufacturers and alterers may voluntarily comply with the
requirements of the regulation prior to this date.
B. Response to Public Comments
1. Whether NHTSA Should Require EDRs
We expressly stated in the NPRM that we were not proposing to
require all light vehicles to be equipped with EDRs. Under the proposed
rule, vehicle manufacturers retained discretion regarding the decision
of whether to install EDRs. However, if a vehicle were equipped with an
EDR, the vehicle would be required to comply with the requirements of
the proposed Part 563. We stated that we did not believe it was
necessary to mandate installation of EDRs at this time, noting that the
industry has substantially progressed in the development and
installation of EDRs without the agency's requiring them. We estimated
that at least 64 percent of model year 2004 passenger cars and other
light vehicles have some recording capability, and more than half
record elements such as crash pulse data. We noted also that industry
was expected to install EDRs in an increasing percentage of new
vehicles.
The agency received several comments on the issue of whether we
should require manufacturers to install EDRs in all new vehicles. GM
commented that NHTSA should adopt a FMVSS that would mandate
installation of EDRs on all passenger cars and light trucks with a GVWR
up to 3,855 kg (8,500 pounds). GM stated that a mandatory EDR
requirement would maximize safety benefits by ensuring that all covered
vehicles capture and record key crash data. According to GM, an EDR
mandate would also eliminate incentives for manufacturers to remove
existing EDRs or to delay their introduction. In addition, GM argued
that the standard should prohibit
[[Page 51010]]
switches that would permit EDR disablement.
Public Citizen, Advocates, NADA, and NTSB urged NHTSA to require
the installation of EDRs. Public Citizen stated that NHTSA should
require EDRs because these devices can provide valuable safety
benefits, including: (1) Better understanding of crash causation and
injury sources; (2) enhanced commercial vehicle safety; (3) better data
on defect trends; (4) safer highway designs; and (5) improved emergency
response to crashes. Advocates argued that unless the agency requires
EDRs, data collection would take many years to gather sufficient
information for useful study. Mr. Fink, a crash reconstructionist,
stated that the rule should require EDRs in all vehicles sold in the
U.S. Four individuals commented that they supported the NPRM, one of
which indicated that EDRs should be mandatory.
Several commenters argued that NHTSA's proposal to apply the rule
to only those vehicles equipped with EDRs would either act as an
incentive for manufacturers to remove EDRs from product lines currently
equipped with EDRs or would discourage manufacturers from installing
EDRs in new product lines. Ford argued the agency would need to issue a
rule that requires installation of EDRs to accomplish the objectives
set forth in the agency's proposal. Ford stated that it has been unable
to develop a workable definition of an EDR that would uniformly create
a truly voluntary requirement for all vehicle manufacturers and that
avoids incentives for removal of existing recording capability or the
deferred introduction of such capabilities.
IIHS, Public Citizen, PCIAA, and Children's Hospital of
Philadelphia joined Ford and GM in arguing that not requiring
manufacturers to install EDRs would act as an incentive for vehicle
manufacturers to remove EDRs from vehicles and/or would discourage
installation of EDRs in new product lines. According to these
commenters, the net result would be a reduction in the number of
vehicles equipped with EDRs. While Ford expressed support for modifying
language to create a truly voluntary requirement that would at the same
time address these concerns, IIHS, Public Citizen, PCIAA, GM, and
Children's Hospital argued for a mandatory rule (with PCIAA noting that
the industry needs ample lead time to comply), which would eliminate
the incentive to remove EDRs and/or the discretion not to install EDRs
in new product lines.
SISC supported the proposal's position that EDRs should include
minimum standards for capturing crash data. SISC stated that current
EDRs are focused on capturing data to evaluate the performance of
safety systems; however, they do not adequately address the needs of
capturing data for crash investigations. SISC stated that without
mandatory minimum standards for capturing crash data, EDRs would not
provide the type of information needed for safety research.
On the other hand, DaimlerChrysler and Toyota supported a voluntary
approach to EDR installation. DaimlerChrysler also commented that the
definition of EDR should be modified to ensure that EDRs are voluntary.
In explaining its request for modification, DaimlerChrysler stated that
the NPRM's definition of EDR references the deployable restraint
control module for the purpose of determining whether a vehicle is
equipped with an EDR. DaimlerChrysler argued that all light vehicles
are equipped with such control modules; therefore, the adoption of a
definition making such a reference would effectively mandate EDRs for
all applicable vehicles, contrary to the agency's stated intent.
Porsche also argued that the NPRM's definition of EDR would
effectively require manufacturers to install EDRs. Porsche argued that
a vehicle might be capable of recording and storing a few pieces of
static freeze frame data in the air bag control unit (i.e., an isolated
observation or snapshot of a set of data such as the seat belt status,
frontal air bag warning lamp status, etc., triggered by an impact
exceeding a defined trigger threshold). Although such systems fall
outside the common understanding of EDRs, Porsche argued that this type
of recorded data would fall within the proposed EDR definition. Porsche
stated that storage of freeze frame data should not, by itself, be a
sufficient basis for determining that a vehicle is equipped with an
EDR, particularly since such data do not provide information on pre-
crash events. Siemens VDO Automotive AG characterized the rule as
``semi-compulsory.''
We have carefully considered the arguments presented by the
commenters for requiring the installation of EDRs in all subject
vehicles.
We are not yet persuaded that it is necessary or appropriate to
mandate the installation of EDRs. We believe that the industry's
voluntary development and installation of EDRs, combined with the
standardization requirements in this rule, will be sufficient to meet
the agency's and public's near term needs. Standardized EDR data from
the growing population of vehicles with EDRs, collected and compositely
analyzed, will enable the agency to investigate crashes more
effectively and to analyze safety equipment performance, resulting in
improved agency understanding of crash and injury causation. These data
will also lay a foundation for advanced crash notification systems.
Further, insofar as achieving those near term goals is concerned,
adopting a rule mandating EDR installation would result in an
unnecessary cost for automobile manufacturers and consumers. To
operate, EDRs need a databus.\26\ Since less expensive vehicles are not
equipped with a databus, a rule mandating EDR installation would
require manufacturers to install a databus in those vehicles. While we
are not presently compelling the installation of EDRs, it is our
intention that their use continue to expand.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ The bus (connections between and within the central
processing unit, memory, and peripherals) is used to carry data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As for the agency's longer terms goals related to EDRs, we expect
the extent of installation in new vehicles to continue increasing and
to reach approximately 85 percent by model year 2010. Based on
currently available information, such as that obtained in connection
with our NCAP program, the new vehicles lacking an EDR in that model
year will be primarily those manufactured either in Germany or Korea.
As Korea has expressed interest in the development of an EDR standard
under the International Standards Organization, it appears that Korean
built vehicles also might eventually be voluntarily equipped with EDRs.
Further, we believe that allowing the current voluntary, gradualist
approach to increased installation of EDRs to continue is more
appropriate for meeting those longer term goals than mandating an
acceleration of further increases in the extent of installation. We are
aware that some consumers are concerned about the ownership and use of
EDR data. The voluntary approach provides additional time for
implementing measures concerning those concerns.
We have considered the comments of Advocates and SISC, asking us to
mandate EDRs so that it is possible to gather additional data for
safety research. The agency seeks to gather EDR information in a
readily usable manner to analyze crashes and the performance of safety
equipment as composite information (i.e., to discover statistically
significant trends). We
[[Page 51011]]
believe that the current level of EDR installation, combined with our
standardization requirement, will yield data of statistical
significance. The expected further increases in the extent of
installation will improve the quality of our data still further. In
light of our expected ability to meet these near term goals, we do not
see the need to mandate EDR installation at this time.
We will monitor future increases in the extent of installation of
EDRs and revisit this issue if appropriate.
We do not agree with the comments that our decision to adopt data
standardization requirements without also mandating the installation of
EDRs will induce manufacturers to remove EDRs from the vehicles in
which they are currently installed or to drop plans for installing them
in additional vehicles. The fact that approximately two-thirds of new
vehicles are already equipped with EDRs is strong evidence of a
significant incentive to install these devices. Further, as noted
below, the data standardization requirements we are adopting in this
final rule are less extensive and thus less costly that the ones we
proposed in the NPRM. More specifically, we lowered the number of
events and elements to be recorded. Based on our cost estimates
(discussed below), we do not believe that adoption of our revised data
standardization requirements will increase costs sufficiently to create
a countervailing incentive for manufacturers to remove EDRs. We also
note that consumer products, such as OnStar[supreg], incorporate EDRs
into their services. The consumer appeal of these consumer products
strengthens the existing incentive for manufacturers to install EDRs in
their vehicles.\27\ In sum, we conclude that there are major benefits
from the use of EDRs, but the marketplace appears to be adopting EDRs
and we do not currently see a need to mandate their installation. The
agency will monitor further progress in this area, and will be prepared
to consider this question further if needed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ In response to the concerns that the breadth of our
proposed EDR definition could have the effect of requiring the
installation of EDRs, we note that we have revised the definition of
EDR, as discussed below, to exclude static freeze-frame data
elements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We have also considered GM's comment urging us to ban EDR ``on/off
switches'' and the comments of other commenters asking that we require
them. This final rule concerns the standardization of EDR data elements
and ensuring that downloaded EDR data are available to intended users.
We did not propose either requiring or precluding on/off switches in
the NPRM. We note, however that on/off switches could limit the
benefits provided by EDRs. As with the issue of mandating installation
of EDRs, we think it premature to compel action on this issue, and will
continue to monitor and assess whether action is warranted in the
future.
2. EDR Data Elements
a. Number and Types of Required Data Elements
The NPRM provided a list of required data elements (a minimum set
of elements required to be recorded if a vehicle is equipped with an
EDR, regardless of whether those elements are presently recorded by the
vehicle's EDR) and a list of ``if equipped'' elements (elements that
would be required to be recorded only if the vehicle is equipped with
the relevant safety system or sensing capability).
NHTSA received several comments on the proposal's number of
required data elements. Several manufacturers commented that the
proposal's required number of data elements was excessive; however,
manufacturers' comments differed as to which of the data elements
should be deleted. Commenters representing highway safety advocacy
groups suggested that the number of required elements is insufficient
to meet NHTSA's stated goals of improving data compatibility, crash
investigation, and safety. Some commenters suggested adding the VIN as
a required data element.
GM, DaimlerChrysler, IIHS, and Mitsubishi argued that the NPRM
proposed an excessive number of data elements. GM provided a critique
of the each of the data elements and recommended a different list of
required data elements. GM's position was that the NPRM's data elements
go beyond the minimum set of data elements needed by safety researchers
and crash reconstructionists. GM argued that the number of required
elements in the NPRM could compromise the ability of the vehicle's
control modules to perform their primary function of deploying
restraint systems. The number of required elements could also inhibit
manufacturers from collecting other, more potentially useful data, to
the extent that the required elements consume available processing
capacity.\28\ IIHS made a similar comment, stating that the number of
proposed data elements increases the burden on manufacturers and the
incentive for manufacturers to delay or eliminate safety features.
Mitsubishi commented that NHTSA should only require those data elements
that are needed to capture crash data that would truly be useful in
improving motor vehicle safety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ Accordingly, GM, Daimler Chrysler, Ford, and Toyota
recommended deletion of the following ``required'' data elements:
(1) Engine RPM; (2) Longitudinal Acceleration (x-direction); (3)
Multi-event Crash; and (4) Frontal Air Bag Deployment Level. The
four automakers also recommended deletion of the following ``if
equipped'' data elements: (1) ABS Activity; (2) Lateral Acceleration
(y-direction); (3) Normal Acceleration (z-direction); (4) Occupant
Size Classification; (5) Seat Position; (6) Steering Wheel Angle;
(7) Stability Control; (8) Frontal Air Bag Suppression Switch
Status; (9) Vehicle Roll Angle; (10) Disposal (second stage of a
frontal air bag).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hyundai and Kia offered several comments regarding NHTSA's proposed
data elements. First, they requested that, ``data capture be limited to
events that trigger air bag deployment.'' Second, they commented that
``engine RPM'' and ``engine throttle'' data serve the same purpose and
requested that only one of those data elements be required. Third,
Hyundai and Kia commented that the data elements ``Ignition cycle,
crash'' and ``Ignition cycle, download'' should not be required;
Hyundai's and Kia's position is that these data elements do not provide
data about the crash event, and that these elements would require
additional programming and memory. According to these companies,
requiring these data elements would increase costs and necessary lead
time.
Delphi recommended that NHTSA limit ``the content of event records
to those data that are of significant value to crash investigation and
safety system performance analysis' in order to reduce the amount of
memory that will be required. Delphi stated that each required
parameter would consume memory for six instances of that parameter
because of the need to hold and compare up to three events in temporary
and permanent memory.
Subaru and AIAM argued that the NPRM contained too many data
elements, and each provided a recommendation for which data elements
the final rule should require. Subaru recommended that NHTSA should re-
select and prioritize data elements in order to increase the
feasibility of compliance with a final regulation. Specifically, Subaru
recommended that NHTSA ``omit acceleration direction, tolerance range,
and accuracy of G sensors from the requirement or allow significant
additional lead time on a phase-in schedule.'' AIAM commented that to
reduce the number of systems that would require a complete redesign of
vehicle electrical architecture, the minimum data set should include
only the following data elements: (1) Driver and front passenger belt
use; (2) throttle
[[Page 51012]]
position; (3) brakes on/off; (4) ABS engaged/not engaged; (5) vehicle
speed; (6) longitudinal and lateral vehicle acceleration; (7) delta-V;
and (8) time of air bag deployment.
In contrast to the commenters who suggested that the NPRM contains
too many required data elements, Public Citizen and PCIAA encouraged
NHTSA to require additional data elements. Public Citizen stated that
to maximize the benefits of the EDR rule, NHTSA should standardize
(i.e., require) a far more extensive list of EDR data elements. Public
Citizen pointed to the Institute of Electrical and Electronics
Engineers (IEEE) Project 1616 (``Motor Vehicle Event Data Recorders''),
which includes 80 EDR data elements used by different groups. Public
Citizen commented that NHTSA did not propose to require many of the
``top ten'' data elements listed by the NHTSA-sponsored EDR Working
Group.\29\ Public Citizen argued that standardizing EDR data elements
would ensure compatibility of EDR data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ We note that this group was a fact-finding group, and the
findings were those of the group and not NHTSA's findings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PCIAA commented that the proposed rule focuses too much on
restraint systems and not enough on systems to help the driver avoid
collisions. PCIAA suggested that NHTSA should require data elements
that would track driver inputs and the performance of the steering,
suspension, or braking systems. According to PCIAA, the rule should
include other equipment such as vehicle lighting or ``intelligent
vehicle'' systems and should address equipment that is likely to be in
used in the future, such as stability control systems, radar, cameras,
and similar technology to monitor the driving environment.
Nissan, Mr. Fink, Mr. Kast,\30\ Bendix, and AAA all suggested
specific data elements they believe should be required. Several data
elements that the commenters suggested we require were not proposed in
the NPRM. Nissan suggested that the following elements be required: (1)
Delta-V direction (lateral, longitudinal, vertical); (2) roll rate
(roll acceleration); (3) yaw rate; (4) gear position; (5) traction
control system status; (6) number of downloads after event; and (7)
passenger air bag disable indicator status. Mr. Fink stated that the
rule should require a standard data set, including ``vehicle speed,
brake switch status, accelerator status, engine rpm, seat belt switch
status and air bag deployment/belt pre-tensioner status.'' Mr. Kast
commented that, based on his studies of EDR data, the following
elements are necessary to evaluate the cause of a crash: (1) Status of
dimmed headlights; (2) status of high beam; (3) status of indicator
left; (4) status of indicator right; (5) status of any special signals;
and (6) yaw angle or yaw angle velocity. Mr. Kast's rationale is that
the status of the lighting equipment and turn signals are important for
the evaluation of crashes that occur in the dark. Mr. Kast also
emphasized the importance of knowing the yaw angle or yaw angle
velocity in order to calculate the trajectory of the vehicle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ Mr. Kast's comments were submitted independently and by
Siemens VDO Automotive, AG. According to Mr. Kast, he is an
``independent expert in the field of accident investigation and
accident data recorders.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bendix Commercial Vehicle Systems, L.L.C. commented that the
following data elements should be included in the minimum requirements:
(1) Transmission status (gear selection on automatic transmissions);
(2) brake switch status; (3) accelerator (%); (4) engine speed (RPM);
(5) date time; (6) engine hours; (7) odometer reading; (8) headlights
on/off; (9) turn signal status; (10) cruise control (on/off); (11) ABS
fault status; and (12) tire pressure (axle or each wheel or as
regulated by NHTSA).
AAA commented that rear seat air bags are being installed with
increasing frequency and stated that NHTSA should consider requiring
the recording of data elements associated with rear seat air bags in
vehicles so equipped (e.g., rear seat occupant presence, size, seating
position, and restraint use).
SISC, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Delphi, and Public
Citizen commented on the NPRM's categorization of data elements as
``required for all vehicles equipped with an EDR'' (Table I) or
``required for vehicles under specified conditions'' (Table II) and
suggested that we change the categorization of certain data elements.
SISC stated that NHTSA should mandate lateral acceleration as part of
the required set of data elements. According to SISC, multi-axis
accelerometers are becoming less expensive, and both longitudinal and
lateral acceleration are essential to determining the true delta-V and
the principal direction of force, which are critical elements of
general crash investigation, biomechanics research, and the
understanding of injury causation. Children's Hospital of Philadelphia
made a similar comment, stating lateral acceleration should be a
mandatory data element.
Delphi suggested that data elements not normally part of the
restraint control system should be moved from the table of data
elements required if the vehicle is equipped with an EDR to the table
(NPRM's Table II) of elements required under specific conditions (e.g.,
vehicle indicated speed, engine RPM, engine throttle, service brake
status). According to Delphi, this would lower the cost of
implementation for many manufacturers.
On the other hand, Public Citizen argued for re-categorizing
several data elements that the NPRM proposed to be recorded only under
specified conditions (Table II) and instead require them (i.e., place
them in Table I). Public Citizen believes that the final rule should
require these data elements to be recorded (e.g., seat belt status for
the front passenger). Public Citizen's rationale is that many of these
elements only require additional sensing capabilities, which are fairly
inexpensive in most cases.
NTSB expressed concern that Table I and Table II will result in
different data being available from different EDRs. It stated that the
rule should require the same information from all EDRs to encourage
uniformity of data and standardization of EDR usage. NTSB encouraged
NHTSA to develop a comprehensive standardized list of data elements
that would apply to all highway vehicles, including heavy vehicles.
Several commenters, including Mr. Kast, Injury Sciences, Public
Citizen, and EPIC, recommended requiring some type of date/time stamp
and/or VIN information. Mr. Kast and Injury Sciences commented that a
date/time stamp should be added to the required elements in order to
correlate the recorded data with a crash event. Mr. Kast explained that
the linkage is particularly important since low intensity accidents may
be recorded. If this information is not required, Injury Sciences urged
NHTSA to consider alternatives for linking data to a particular vehicle
and accident. Public Citizen stated that a VIN data element would
significantly increase the usefulness of EDR data by permitting
crosschecks across various NHTSA databases. EPIC commented that the EDR
should record the first eleven digits of the VIN, although ``the unique
serial number portion of the VIN--a personal identifier--should not be
collected.'' EPIC's rationale is that make, model, and manufacturing
origin are important data for crash analysis.
GM and Delphi raised cost issues pertaining to the data elements.
GM requested that the final rule expressly state that the specified
list of data elements is not intended to limit manufacturers' ability
to voluntarily collect and record additional data elements. Delphi
suggested that the
[[Page 51013]]
condition for an element to be required (Table II of the NPRM) be
changed from ``vehicle is equipped,'' to ``data is available to the
recording device.'' According to Delphi, this would lower the cost of
implementation for many manufacturers.
Siemens VDO Automotive AG and Bendix commented on the state of
technology and our EDR proposal. Siemens VDO Automotive AG commented
that the NPRM definitions for data elements should be modified (i.e.,
made more stringent) to reflect the state of technology already
available and in use. Siemens predicted that the changes would not
result in significantly higher costs because the standardization and
adoption by all manufacturers would lower the costs of production.
Bendix suggested that solid state digital storage media and non-
volatile storage devices could be used in conjunction with emerging
technologies in the area of high-speed data links, which combine data,
voice, and video data on a single communications link to record
additional types of data.
Nissan and Honda requested clarification on specific technical
aspects of our proposal. Nissan stated that instead of recording the
engine throttle, we should require recording the accelerator pedal
operation. Additionally, Nissan suggested that the rule should permit
two alternatives for determining the beginning of an event, as provided
in SAE J1698, Vehicle Event Data Interface--Vehicular Output Data
Definition. Nissan also sought clarification about the ``complete file
recorded'' data element. Nissan questioned whether the ``Yes'' value
indicates that the EDR functioned the whole time or whether the data
set is complete (i.e., the EDR received good data from all systems).
Honda sought clarification related to the data element for ``frontal
air bag deployment level.'' Honda sought to confirm its understanding
that this term means the percentage of maximum inflator output used for
occupant restraint (i.e., inflator output excluding the output of the
deployment for disposal, regardless of the delay timing of the second
(disposal) stage deployment).
TRW Automotive commented that the status of the anti-lock braking
system (ABS) is not adequately indicated by the ``ABS Activity'' data
element. TRW suggested that ``ABS Warning Lamp (On/Off)'' would provide
a better indication of the status of the ABS system at the time a crash
occurred. TRW Automotive commented that the data attributes for
stability control systems should be modified because they do not
clearly indicate the status. According to TRW, ``off'' should indicate
that the driver has turned off the system, and an attribute ``Not
Available'' should be added to indicate that the system is in a ``not
available'' state.
We indicated in the NPRM that it was not our intention to require
manufacturers to install expensive technological hardware or software
to meet our EDR standardization proposal. In the NPRM, we emphasized
that vehicle manufactures have voluntarily made significant investments
in EDRs and are already recording several data elements that suit our
goals. The NPRM explained that our proposal sought to build upon the
automotive industry's EDR accomplishments by standardizing the way data
elements are captured and recorded. In other words, we considered our
proposal to record the most important data elements relevant to crash
reconstruction, the analysis of safety equipment performance, and ACN
in light of the data already being processed by vehicles.
We envisioned and it was our intent that the proposed EDR
standardization requirements could be implemented by vehicle
manufacturers at a minimal cost, since vehicle manufacturers had made
EDR capability an additional function of a vehicle's air bag control
system. We did not intend to require vehicle manufacturers to install
equipment, such as additional accelerometers, to comply with the rule.
(We estimated, for example, that an additional accelerometer could cost
$20 per vehicle.)
Our approach of standardizing the most important data elements at a
minimal cost remains the same. However, after carefully considering the
comments, we have re-evaluated the number and types of data elements
that manufacturers should be required to standardize. We learned from
the comments that the frequency, range, accuracy, and precision
requirements (discussed subsequently) for many of the data elements we
proposed would require an upgrade in sensors, microprocessors, and
memory capability that would substantially add to the cost of complying
with this rule. This was not our intention. We also learned that it is
not current industry practice to record some of the data elements we
proposed. In order to remain consistent with our approach of
standardizing data at a minimal cost, we have revised the number of
required data elements to reduce implementation cost and better reflect
current industry practice.
In revising the number and types of data elements to be recorded if
a vehicle is equipped with an EDR (i.e., Table I), we deleted five
items that we had proposed in the NPRM: ``longitudinal acceleration,''
``engine RPM,'' ``frontal air bag deployment level, driver,'' ``frontal
air bag deployment level, right front passenger,'' and ``time from
event 2 to 3.'' We added two items: ``time, maximum delta-V'' and
``delta-V, longitudinal.'' \31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ A discussion of our changes relating to the acceleration
and delta-V data elements occurs in the next subsection, titled
``The Acceleration and Delta-V Data Elements.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We deleted the ``engine RPM'' from Table I but added it to Table
II. ``Engine RPM'' is somewhat related to ``accelerator pedal
position.'' Accelerator pedal position reflects the driver's input to
the engine. Engine RPM indicates the engine's response to that input.
We believe that the two data elements are closely related, although
distinct. We have reviewed many of GM's EDR crash data sets, and see
little value in requiring ``engine RPM'' at this time. Moving this data
element to Table II will reduce memory costs and the amount of data
manipulation during pre-crash.
After carefully considering the comments, we have also decided to
remove ``frontal air bag deployment level, driver'' and ``frontal air
bag deployment level, right front passenger'' from the list of required
data elements (Table I). These elements would have indicated the
deployment level of the driver's and right front seat passenger's air
bag system. After further consideration, we believe that the same
information we anticipated gathering from these deleted data elements
can be ascertained using other data elements: ``frontal air bag
deployment, time to deploy, in the case of a single stage air bag, or
time to first stage deployment, in the case of a multi-stage air bag,
driver'' (and the right front passenger equivalent) from Table I and
``frontal air bag deployment time to nth stage, driver''
(and the right front passenger equivalent) from Table II.
In revising the number and types of data elements to be recorded
under specified conditions (Table II), we added four items that did not
appear in the NPRM: ``delta-v, lateral,'' ``maximum delta-V, lateral,''
``time to maximum delta-V, lateral,'' and ``time to maximum, delta-V,
resultant.'' \32\ Commenters had requested changes in the data elements
for longitudinal acceleration and delta-V, and as noted elsewhere in
this document, the agency has adopted a number of those changes
[[Page 51014]]
as part of this final rule. However, in order to fully implement those
changes for the longitudinal direction, we believe it is necessary to
also adopt data elements that constitute the lateral counterpart of the
requested changes. This was done to provide standardized data elements
that are consistent with those in Table I for longitudinal acceleration
and delta-V. However, we have incorporated these additional data
elements in Table II, rather than Table I.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ A discussion of the data elements related to acceleration
and delta-V follows below in section titled ``The Acceleration and
Delta-V Data Elements.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After considering the comments, we have decided to retain a number
of the data elements that some manufacturers recommended that we
delete, including ``occupant size classification'' and ``frontal air
bag suppression switch status.'' Occupant size classification is
important in determining whether the advanced restraint systems are
working properly by drawing a comparison between the occupant and the
safety system's classification. We believe that this is vital to that
purpose of obtaining EDR data for the analysis of safety equipment
performance. Frontal air bag on/off switch status is important in cases
where the right front passenger air bag does not deploy. There is a
possibility in some vehicles with no back seats that the air bag was
turned-off at the time of the crash. It is critical that the EDR
capture this evidence to enable an evaluation of whether advanced
restraint systems functioned properly.
We have also decided to retain ``ignition cycle, crash'' and
``ignition cycle, download.'' These two data elements provide a method
to identify whether the data stored in the EDR is related to a crash
under investigation or to a previous crash.
As indicated above, several commenters recommended recording other
data elements that we did not propose to record (e.g., roll rate, yaw
rate, gear position, number of downloads after event, passenger air bag
disable indicator status, status of lamps and signals, engine hours,
odometer reading, cruise control, ABS fault status, ``intelligent
vehicle systems,'' steering input, and tire pressure). We have
carefully considered these recommendations. We emphasize this final
rule standardizes and requires (Table I) the most important data
elements that are essential to crash reconstruction, the analysis of
safety equipment performance, and ACN. We have decided not to require
the recording of these additional data elements. We believe that
recording these additional data elements, which are currently of lesser
value for our stated purposes, would not only result in significantly
higher costs but would also risk overburdening the microprocessing and
memory capabilities of EDRs and increase potential record times. This
increases the risk of system failure. We may revisit the distribution
of data elements between Table I and Table II as technology advances,
costs decrease, and the ability to record these data elements become
less risky. We may also consider expanding Table II in the future as
manufacturers expand the capability of EDRs and add additional sensors
to motor vehicles that could be beneficial to motor vehicle safety.
We have carefully considered comments from Mr. Kast, Injury
Sciences, Public Citizen, and EPIC that we should include crash
location, date/time stamp and VIN as data elements. We believe that the
data elements related to crash location, date, time, and VIN are not
essential to meet our goals of crash investigation and safety equipment
performance. As we have stated earlier, we are currently standardizing
only data elements that are important for composite analysis. We have a
need to gather information about specific crashes only as it is related
to general trends that we may discover with the information we gather.
Therefore, we presently find it unnecessary to require manufacturers to
collect or to standardize this type of data.
After considering Public Citizen's comments, we disagree with the
argument that the final rule must include all elements listed in the
IEEE 1616 MVEDR Standard report and the ``top ten'' items presented in
the NHTSA-sponsored EDR working group report. The IEEE 1616 report,
which lists 80 data elements, is a compilation of the data elements
that are available/recordable at present, or expected to be in the
future, for various vehicles. In other words, the data elements listed
in the IEEE 1616 report are a compilation of all available data
elements (i.e., a ``data dictionary''), and not a recommended set of
data elements. We do not believe it would be appropriate at this time
to require automobile manufacturers to record all of the data elements
contained in the IEEE 1616 report. Doing so would substantially extend
the number of standardized data elements, resulting in redundancy and
the standardization of many data elements that are presently unrelated
to the purposes of this rulemaking.
Public Citizen also contends that we have not included many of the
data elements listed in the ``top ten'' list found in the NHTSA-
sponsored EDR working group report. As we stated above, this group was
sponsored by NHTSA; however, we have never adopted its findings as our
own. However, we note that the final rule does include standardization
protocols for many of the same data elements that are listed in the
``top ten'' list, including longitudinal/lateral acceleration, seat
belt status, pre-crash data (e.g., steering wheel angle, brake use,
vehicle speed), vehicle roll angle, ABS, stability control, and air bag
data.
We have considered Delphi's recommendation that data elements not
pertinent to restraint control and/or crash reconstruction should be
moved to Table II. Our NPRM was based on this premise; that is, Table I
contains the data elements critical to crash reconstruction, advanced
restraint operation, and enabling ACN. We continue to support our
approach for Table I data elements. However, we have modified Table I
slightly by: (1) Moving the ``engine RPM'' data element to Table II,
because it can generally be inferred from accelerator pedal position;
(2) substituting delta-V-related crash severity measurements for
acceleration measurements to reduce complication and cost of EDRs, and
(3) dropping those data elements related to a third event, because we
believe two events will capture most crashes with multiple, non-trivial
events.
NTSB expressed its desire for recording accelerator/brake pedal
positions in certain special crashes. The revised Table I retains both
of these data elements.
We have also considered Public Citizen's arguments that several
data elements currently listed in Table II could be moved to Table I
(required) for minimal to no cost (e.g., safety belt status, front
passenger). The costs associated with placing particular data elements
in Table I is not the sole factor in determining whether to include
that data element in the core set listed in Table I. To minimize the
risk of data loss, we must also consider the current capabilities of
microprocessors to process the information and the availability of
memory storage capacity. The longer or larger the data file, the more
complicated it is to record it successfully during a crash. We believe
our Table I required list and our Table II (standard formats for data
elements recorded by manufacturers) provide a reasonable balance of
these concerns and priorities. We may reevaluate the number and types
of data elements in the future as EDRs, memory, and microprocessing
continue to develop. In the meantime, we believe that it is appropriate
to keep ``safety belt status, right front passenger'' and other similar
[[Page 51015]]
data elements in Table II. We emphasize that our final rule requires a
minimum set of data, and manufacturers may and most likely will exceed
this minimum data set, incorporating data elements listed in Table II
and event data elements we have not listed in this final rule.
We note that the data elements in Table II must be standardized if
recorded. Therefore, we believe that manufacturers that are currently
recording these data elements will be able to standardize at a minimal
cost.
We have considered NTSB's comment encouraging uniformity in the
number and types of data elements recorded for all EDRs. As noted
above, we believe this final rule standardizes a core set of data
elements that will be useful for crash reconstruction, the analysis of
safety equipment performance, and the development of ACN. Table I does
standardize a core set of data elements among all vehicles equipped
with an EDR. However, we recognize that vehicle manufacturers are in
different stages of technological development with their EDRs. Some
manufacturers have made greater strides in the development of EDRs and
the number of recorded data elements while others have been slower to
evolve. We developed Table II to standardize data elements that are
currently recorded by some manufacturers, but not others.
NTSB commented that they were concerned that our approach of a
minimum data set (Table I) combined with an optional data set (Table
II) would result in different vehicles recording different data
elements. This regulation establishes a minimum data set for vehicles
that are equipped with an EDR. Manufacturers are permitted to record
other additional data elements, as they believe fit the needs of their
vehicles and equipment installed on their vehicles. We have taken an
approach that will: (1) Ensure that all vehicles equipped with an EDR
will have a minimum set of data, (2) provide standardization for
additional priority data elements, and (3) allow manufacturers to
obtain other additional data as they deem appropriate to meet their
needs. As EDRs evolve, NHTSA may reevaluate this approach in future
rulemakings.
We also want to provide manufacturers with the flexibility to
improve their EDR designs and record a diverse group of data elements
so that we may continue to study the usefulness of various data
elements in terms of safety. We view EDRs as a new technology that has
not seen much maturation outside of its initial inception as part of
the air bag module. This rulemaking, we believe, is a positive step
toward guiding the development of EDR technology for vehicle safety
purposes by both requiring a standardized set of data elements that we
believe will be useful while at the same time providing manufacturers
with the ability to continue to evolve the EDR.
Likewise, we do not agree with IIHS that the number of data
elements we have chosen to standardize will provide incentive for
manufacturers to delay or eliminate safety features. Our cost estimates
indicate that our standardization requirements, as revised in this
final rule, will not result in significant costs to manufacturers. As
stated above, we have narrowed the recording requirements for EDRs.
Also, we believe that our decision to standardize a core set of data
elements and requiring standardization of data elements ``if recorded''
will allow flexibility for manufacturers to research and develop EDRs.
We have considered Hyundai's and Kia's argument that we should
limit the recording of data to events that trigger air bag deployment.
We do not believe that limiting our data to events that trigger air bag
deployment would be sufficient for our purposes. We want to know about
events that should have deployed air bags, but did not do so,
indicating the possible existence of a defect. Further, we seek to
gather data not only to analyze the performance of air bags, but also
to analyze the performance of other safety equipment, such as seat
belts. We also seek to gather data helpful for crash reconstruction. We
believe that this data can be standardized and recorded without
significant cost. Further, we anticipate that development of e-911 and
ACN systems may lead vehicle manufacturers to incorporate additional
elements besides air bag deployment; such elements may provide
information to EMS regarding other crash modes, such as side impact and
rollover, as sensor technologies advance and their costs decline.
We do not agree with AIAM that our final rule will require a
complete redesign of vehicle electrical architecture if we do not
reduce the minimum data set to the eight elements it proposes. As
discussed in the costs section, we anticipate negligible redesign to
the electrical architecture of vehicles as a result of our final rule.
Additionally, we note that our new Table II is similar to AIAM's
recommendation. Our Table II includes ABS engaged/not engaged and right
front passenger belt use.
Nissan requested clarification about the ``complete file recorded''
data element, asking whether the ``yes'' value indicates that the EDR
functioned the whole time or whether the data set is complete. A
complete record is a record that ends normally, regardless of the
amount of data. An incomplete record is one that ends abnormally. For
example, a complete value with ``yes'' indication would include a
scenario where all data elements were captured successfully and
recorded to memory or where some elements were not captured because of
device failure but the full record was recorded to memory. Examples of
when there is an incomplete record is where all data was captured
successfully, but the record function interrupted and the file is
incomplete, or in the case of a power or system failure, there is no
data captured, so there is no value.
TRW commented that the data element ``ABS Activity'' does not
adequately indicate the status of the ABS system. In the NPRM, we
intended the word ``status'' to mean that the ABS was actively
controlling the brake forces, not whether the system status was
operational. We would expect ``on'' to mean that the vehicle's ABS was
actively controlling the vehicle brakes. Conversely, we would expect
``off'' to be used at all other times. For example, if a person is
stopping and presses the brakes moderately in normal driving
conditions, then we would expect the service brake operation to
indicate ``on.'' If driver uses hard braking, activating the ABS, then
the ABS activity would indicate ``on'' for that time period. The
``service brake'' data element would continue to read ``on'' during
periods of ABS activity.
TRW also commented that the data attributes for stability control
systems should be modified because they do not clearly indicate the
status. We proposed three states for stability control: ``on,''
``off,'' and ``engaged.'' ``On'' and ``off'' are intended to be status
of the vehicle's stability control on/off switch. We intend ``engaged''
to be used when the stability control is actively controlling the
vehicle. Some vehicles do not have on/off switches for stability
control, and the systems remains ``on.'' In such a case, the indicator
would read, depending on the circumstances, either ``yes'' or
``engaged.''
We also made a modification to the ``condition or requirement''
provision for most of the data elements in Table II. In the NPRM, we
used the phrase ``if equipped.'' We proposed the phrase ``if equipped''
because we envisioned requiring manufacturers to record the data
elements in Table II if the vehicle is equipped with the relevant
safety
[[Page 51016]]
system or sensing capability. In the final rule, the condition or
requirement for most data elements in Table II will be ``if recorded.''
By using ``if recorded'' we mean that manufacturers are required to
comply with Table II if the data element is recorded in non-volatile
memory for the purpose of subsequent downloading. We made this
modification so that the final rule better reflects current industry
practices. Some data elements may only be recorded in volatile memory
(for applications such as air bag deployment) and not non-volatile
memory for the purpose of subsequent downloading. Our proposal would
have required manufacturers to record in non-volatile memory certain
data elements, such as acceleration.
We also believe that the change effectuates our goal of providing
standardization for the data elements listed in Table II without
substantial cost or risking EDR malfunction. We agree with the
commenters that recording these data elements, such as acceleration, at
the frequency and intervals we proposed, would require additional
memory--adding to the cost of implementation. Recording these data
elements in non-volatile memory would have also increased the risk of
not capturing a complete crash record. A more complete discussion of
the risks associated with recording large crash records is discussed
below.
b. The ``Acceleration'' and ``Delta-V'' Data Elements
In the NPRM, we proposed that Table I (the minimum data set)
include the crash severity data elements ``longitudinal acceleration''
and ``maximum delta-V.'' We selected longitudinal acceleration to
provide crash severity information. Longitudinal acceleration is a
common data element collected in engineering studies and crash tests to
determine crash severity and the shape of the crash pulse in frontal
and rear crashes. It also provides information regarding the maximum
acceleration level. Therefore, we believed that it was appropriate to
standardize longitudinal acceleration.
We also proposed to include maximum delta-V in the minimum data
set. We proposed to include maximum delta-V in the minimum data set
because it quantifies the severity of the crash in the vehicle's
memory. We had proposed that the absolute value of maximum delta-V be
used, if the vehicle experienced a second crash, to determine whether
the data in the EDR's memory should be replaced with the subsequent (or
second) crash information. We proposed that only subsequent crashes
with higher maximum delta-V must be recorded in the vehicle's memory.
GM, Daimler Chrysler, Ford, Honda, and Toyota specifically
requested that we replace the longitudinal acceleration and lateral
acceleration data elements, as proposed in the NPRM, with longitudinal/
lateral delta-V elements. All suggested that delta-V is a better
indicator of crash severity than acceleration. They stated that while
longitudinal/lateral acceleration is currently recorded by some
manufacturers, acceleration data is not currently used or needed for
safety-related crash analysis and reconstruction purposes. The data is
intended for internal use, specifically to understand deployment
algorithms. DaimlerChrysler explained that because of this very
specific use of acceleration data, the time duration recorded was never
intended to capture a complete crash and is usually too volatile for
use in crash investigation. GM made a similar comment, stating that
delta-V is preferred over acceleration in analyzing crash
reconstruction because acceleration data, even after filtering, is
typically too sporadic.\33\ Accordingly, the manufacturers stated that
accident reconstructionists usually use delta-V instead of acceleration
data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ Recording intervals were suggested for the proposed delta-V
recording element and are discussed below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Honda also recommended replacing the proposed elements for
longitudinal, lateral, and normal accelerations with delta-V, coupled
with the angle or direction of delta-V, to improve the overall
understanding of a crash event.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ Specifically, Honda recommended changing the definition of
delta-V, replacing it with the following language:
Delta-V means, for vehicles with only longitudinal acceleration
measurement capability, the change in velocity of the vehicle along
the longitudinal axis, and for vehicles with longitudinal, lateral
and/or normal acceleration measurement capability, the magnitude and
direction of the change in velocity of the resultant of the
longitudinal, lateral and/or normal vehicle velocity time-histories,
within the time interval starting from the time zero and ending 500
ms after time zero.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hyundai and Kia suggested that the ``lateral acceleration'' and
``normal acceleration'' data elements should not be required even if
the vehicle is equipped with sensors. Hyundai and Kia stated that their
tests have shown that the data acquired may be misleading due to
external noise transmitted from body structure damage.
After reviewing the comments, we have decided to adopt modified
requirements for the collection and standardization of data associated
with the acceleration and delta-V data elements. In the final rule, the
acceleration data elements (longitudinal, lateral, and normal) will
appear in Table II. In other words, the final rule will standardize
acceleration data elements if manufacturers are recording the
acceleration data elements. In lieu of longitudinal acceleration, the
final rule focuses on recording delta-V as the crash severity measure.
We have modified data elements relating to delta-V. In the final
rule, Table I includes the data element ``delta-V, longitudinal,''
``maximum delta-V, longitudinal,'' and ``time, maximum delta-V.''
Delta-V longitudinal will provide for the tracking of longitudinal
delta-V time series data, replacing our proposal to record the
longitudinal acceleration time series. We are also adding a new data
element to track the time associated with the maximum longitudinal
delta-V.\35\ We are focusing on delta-V, modifying the final rule to
enhance the standardization of delta-V data elements while also
providing for the standardization of acceleration data if manufacturers
record acceleration (now in Table II). We believe that delta-V will be
sufficient to meet our purposes of analyzing safety equipment
performance, aiding in crash reconstruction, and enabling ACN, while
remaining sensitive to costs, the risk of data loss associated with
writing large amounts of data to memory, and the problems associated
with external noise transmitted from body structure damage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ Our decision to record delta-V instead of acceleration
resulted in the addition of five new definitions in the regulatory
text: (1) Delta-V longitudinal, (2) maximum delta-V, longitudinal,
(3) delta-V, lateral, (4) maximum delta-V lateral, and (5) time,
maximum delta-V, lateral.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We believe that delta-V is sufficient for our objectives. NHTSA has
used delta-V as a measure of crash severity for many years. Delta-V is
considered an essential part of crash investigation. For several
decades, NHTSA's crash investigation teams have gathered information to
estimate delta-V using computer programs. The EDR data will assist
these researchers because they will be able to obtain a direct measure
of delta-V.
There are significant cost differences between delta-V and
acceleration, notwithstanding that both of these time series
measurements are typically based on accelerometer measurements. In
current practice, acceleration time series data are collected every 2
milliseconds for some EDRs while delta-V time series data are collected
every 10 milliseconds
[[Page 51017]]
in others. Therefore, comparing these two practices, accelerometer data
generates 5 times the volume of data. If we were to require, as
proposed, longitudinal acceleration, it would be necessary to capture
and record these data, increasing the cost. This increased cost is due
to the increased size in the microprocessor, random access memory (RAM)
and electrically erasable read only memory (EEROM) that would be needed
to capture and record the volume of data produced by the longitudinal
acceleration data element.
In addition to cost, we have considered the comments that address
the risk of data loss associated with recording a larger file (i.e.,
more data elements or data elements producing larger volumes of data,
such as longitudinal acceleration). In explaining the risk of data
loss, we first explain how the EDR records data. An EDR must
continuously capture pre-crash data, and it must also capture crash
data to determine if the trigger threshold has been met. If we required
acceleration data, EDRs would be required to capture up to 150
milliseconds of data, which equates to 76 data points. However, if we
required delta-V data, EDRs would only need to collect about 26 data
points, which would correspondingly reduce the amount of data to
capture this element. Once the threshold has been met or exceeded, the
remainder of the data set must be captured and then recorded. The
actual recording operation takes place after the crash event. Severe
crashes often interrupt (or destroy) the normal operation of the
vehicle's electrical system. Interruption of the vehicle's electrical
system may compromise the ability of the EDR to complete capturing and
then record data. In the state of current technology, there is a much
better chance of capturing and recording a complete file that is
smaller rather than larger. Accordingly, we believe it is desirable to
keep the file size (i.e., data elements/volume of data) to a minimum.
As the state of technology improves and the cost of microprocessing and
memory declines, we foresee the risk of data loss to pose less of a
concern.
In deciding to include delta-V in the minimum data set (Table I),
we also considered the location of accelerometers. If the accelerometer
is located in an area that has some small local movements (often called
ringing) as a result of the crash, its acceleration profile will not
match that of a rigidly attached accelerometer, producing different
maximum deceleration measurements that would not be usable to make
assessments for a vehicle's frontal crash stiffness--one of the
measurements we were considering when we proposed acceleration as a
required element. Our research indicates that, while acceleration
profiles are not in good agreement between the EDR's accelerometer and
a reference accelerometer, the delta-V measurements in such conditions
are reliable.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ ``Performance of Selected Event Data Recorders,'' Aloke
Prasad, NHTSA 2001, available at http://ww-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-10/EDR/EDR-round-robin-Report.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We have considered the comments asking us to include all directions
of acceleration (x, y, and z) in our minimum data set. We believe that
such information would be informative; however, we must balance our
need against the cost and increased complications with expanding the
minimum data set, as discussed above.
The final rule does provide standardization protocols for the
acceleration data elements if the manufacturer records them (Table II).
Our decision to move longitudinal acceleration from Table I to Table
II, as discussed above, rests on our belief that delta-V is sufficient
for our present purposes, especially in light of the costs and risk of
data loss that we face if we were to require the recording of
longitudinal acceleration. We decided to retain lateral acceleration as
a data element to be standardized if recorded in recognition that it is
a data element that can provide useful information for crash
reconstruction. We also expect lateral acceleration to become more
useful as our proposed upgrade to FMVSS No. 214 evolves. Moreover,
costs and the risk of data loss pose less of a concern on those
manufacturers that have invested in their EDR programs to the point
where they are recording longitudinal and lateral acceleration. We
expect costs associated with merely standardizing the format of this
data already recorded to be minimal.
c. Multiple-Event Crashes and the ``Multiple-Event'' Data Element
In the NPRM, we proposed that the number of crash events be
recorded as a data element, which is listed in Table 1 of the NPRM as
``Multi-event, number of events (1, 2, 3).'' The proposed data element
records the number of crash events (up to three events), with a maximum
of 5 seconds as the proposed gap between connected events of a crash.
Industry commenters disagreed with the NPRM's requirement to record up
to three events--mostly because they believe such a requirement is
technologically complex.
According to GM, NHTSA's proposal did not provide a comprehensive
and objective regulatory requirement with respect to multiple-events.
GM stated that the final rule should not require EDRs to record data
for multiple-impact crashes, but instead should only focus on single-
impact events. GM also argued that a regulatory requirement that
focuses on recording single events would achieve NHTSA's regulatory
objectives because most crashes involve single events. GM stated its
belief that the multiple-event recording requirement is excessive in
part because of the amount of buffering and data processing required to
meet a regulatory requirement to record multiple-events could
compromise the primary purpose of the module to properly deploy
restraint systems and prevent crash injuries. GM urged modification of
the NPRM's definition of ``event'' to reflect this change.
Honda commented that the final rule should clarify an inconsistency
in the NPRM related to recording of events in multi-event crashes where
the air bag deploys. Honda stated that the NPRM provides that in a
situation where the time after a ``trigger threshold event'' is less
than 500 ms, subsequent ``event'' data would not be captured and
recorded in a multi-event crash, even if there is air bag deployment
(see definitions in Sec. 563.5). According to Honda, this conflicts
with the intent of the data capture provisions in Sec. 563.9(d) of the
NPRM. Therefore, Honda recommended that the final rule require,
regardless of the time and/or recording status of any ``trigger event''
as defined in Sec. 563.5, that when air bags deploy, the ``event'' data
should be recorded. Honda's rationale is that such a requirement will
help ensure that EDR data will provide a better understanding of the
circumstances of crashes that are severe enough to deploy an air bag.
Nissan commented that the three-event requirement is unnecessary
and would be expensive and technologically complex to implement. Nissan
suggested that the elements related to the three-event requirement be
dropped. However, if that requirement is retained, Nissan stated that
NHTSA would need to clarify what constitutes a separate event and what
combinations of events need to be recorded.
AIAM commented that the recording of three events in a multi-event
crash is not current industry practice. Instead that organization
suggested that all recording stop after an event resulting in an air
bag deployment. According to AIAM, recording three events, as specified
in the NPRM, would be ``a major task'' and would require
[[Page 51018]]
additional memory and development of new software algorithms.
Hyundai and Kia expressed concern that the accuracy of acceleration
data captured after the first event is uncertain (if a multi-event
crash involves two or more events in the same direction) because of the
technical limitations of acceleration sensors currently available in
the market for air bag systems. Based on this uncertainty, Hyundai and
Kia recommended that we not require accurate acceleration data from an
event that occurs after the air bag is deployed if this event occurs in
the same direction as the previous event. Additionally, Hyundai and Kia
suggested that ``recording time of longitudinal acceleration * * * be
reduced from `-0.1 to 0.5 seconds' to `-0.1 to 0.3' seconds,'' arguing
that this change would prevent recording overlap with other events and
would reduce the implementation cost and time.
Advocates supported the NPRM's proposal to record multi-event
crashes, capturing up to three events, because of the high percentage
of multiple-event crashes. However, Advocates asked us to reconsider
whether a five second interval from the first triggering event would be
sufficient to capture all or most of multi-event crashes.
In light of the comments submitted on the multiple-event recording
data element, we have decided to reduce the number of events to be
recorded in a crash from three to two. We also decided to change the
logic for capturing up to 2 events by limiting the capture to a single
event in the event of a crash where an inflatable restraint is
deployed. As a result, we have modified the data element to reflect up
to 2 events in a crash, dropped the data element that recorded the time
associated with event 3, and retained the data element that records the
time between event 1 and event 2.
We believe that reducing the multiple-event recording requirement
to two events is appropriate considering the number of crashes that
occur with two events or less. We believe the revision will also
alleviate the additional cost and complications associated with
recording up to 3 events. The following discussion explains our
approach and rationale in further detail.
Because we have, in effect, redefined an ``event'' as a change in
delta-V that equals or exceeds 8 km/h (5 mph) in a 150 ms period, we
needed to update our analysis in terms of what events are considered to
be non-trivial, as would justify capture and recording by the EDR
(i.e., events meeting the trigger threshold). In the NPRM, we proposed
that EDRs must be capable of recording up to three events. In light of
these changes, the agency re-examined the issue of multi-event
recording in developing this final rule.
NHTSA conducted an analysis using 2002 and 2003 National Automotive
Sampling System/Crashworthiness Data System (NASS/CDS) data to
determine the distribution of vehicles in multi-event crashes. This
analysis provides a weighted annual estimate of the number of vehicles
in crashes involving multiple events. The data from these two years
reveal that approximately 3.2 million light vehicles in the United
States were towed each year. Of these vehicles, about 2.25 million are
involved in single-event crashes, and 0.85 million are involved in
multi-event crashes. (The remaining 0.1 million had no event, suffered
damage resulting strictly from rollover, or experienced some other non-
collision event.)
Our analysis revealed that delta-V data are missing for at least
one event for many of the 0.85 million vehicles involved in multi-event
crashes. To avoid underestimating the frequency of vehicles involved in
multi-event crashes, the analysis accounted for unknown delta-V data by
adjusting the raw weighted estimate by the ratio of the number of
relevant crashes to the number of crashes without any missing delta-V
data. We assumed that the vehicles in multi-event crashes with unknown
delta-V event data have crash severities similar to those in known
delta-V crash events. Of the 0.85 million vehicles in multi-event
crashes annually, 175,000 vehicles have delta-V data for all events,
while the remaining 684,000 vehicles have at least one event with
missing delta-V data. The total annual estimate of vehicles in multi-
event crashes where at least two of the events have non-trivial delta-
Vs is 587,000. The other 2.61 million vehicles were involved in crashes
that had no more than one non-trivial impact.
We have further estimated the distribution of vehicles experiencing
exactly two non-trivial events, as compared to those experiencing three
or more non-trivial events. (Again, this analysis uses the
distributions established from the vehicles with known delta-V data to
forecast the annual estimate.) Our analysis indicates that
approximately 580,000 vehicles per year are involved in multi-event
crashes with exactly two non-trivial events. The annual estimate of
vehicles involved in crashes with three or more events is 6,000.
In the final rule, we have also made a change in the data capture
and recording strategy, and further allowed an exception to the
multiple-event requirement. For each crash that has an event that
exceeds the trigger threshold, the EDR records data, replacing data
from the previously recorded event(s), up to two events. Typically, up
to two events will be recorded. In those crashes where an air bag is
deployed during one of the two events of the crash, only the event
associated with the air bag deployment must be recorded. This exception
is intended to ensure that a vehicle's microprocessors do not become
overburdened during the critical period when the vehicle is deciding
whether to deploy the air bag. (We note that while not required to do
so, an EDR may capture multi-event data during a crash that involves an
air bag deployment.)
This exception in the capture/recording strategy may reduce the
number of multi-event recordings (i.e., by the number associated with
air bag deployments). Our analysis indicates that about 58 percent of
the time when a vehicle is involved in exactly two non-trivial events,
the air bags are not involved. (The ratio is about the same for
vehicles experiencing one non-trivial event, and it is somewhat lower
for vehicles experiencing three or more non-trivial events.) This
estimate is based on frontal air bag deployment data. Factoring in
these vehicles, the annual estimate of vehicles involved in crashes
with two or more non-trivial events for which the EDR would need to
capture and record data is reduced under the final rule, taking into
account the air bag deployment crashes. We estimate that annually,
about 340,000 vehicles would be involved in recordable non-air bag-
deployment crashes with two or more non-trivial events.
For these reasons, NHTSA has decided to maintain the multi-event
recording requirement in the final rule, but to reduce the number of
events from three to two.
Our modification from recording three events to two events will
significantly reduce the amount of memory required, thereby addressing
commenters concerns about memory and the multiple-event recording
requirement. With regard to Hyundai's and Kia's concerns about the
accuracy of acceleration and recording time, we believe that this issue
is no longer relevant since we are no longer including acceleration in
the minimum set of required data elements.
In response to the comments asking us to clarify the multiple-event
requirements, we will briefly discuss multiple-event recording. An
event is defined as an impact or other physical
[[Page 51019]]
occurrence that meets the trigger threshold--5 mph (8 kph) delta-V
within a 0.150-second period. When this occurs, the pre-crash data are
frozen and the crash data are collected from time zero to 0.3 seconds.
If the first event is the deployment of an inflatable restraint,
these data are recorded to memory and the file is locked. No further
analyses (i.e., looking for subsequent triggers) or recording occurs.
If there is no inflatable restraint deployment during the first event,
the data are captured and stored in a similar manner. There are several
possibilities that could occur after this event
First, no subsequent event occurs. In this case, the first event
ends at 300 ms after time zero.
Second, a subsequent event occurs without an air bag deployment. In
this case, the first event ends at 300 ms and within 5 seconds of time
zero (event 1) another event is detected. These data are then captured
and recorded in a separate file, resulting in a two-event recording.
Third, a subsequent event occurs where the second trigger is
detected during the first event, that is, during the 300 ms data
collection period of the first event. It is possible that a second
impact in a multi-impact crash could occur while the first event is
still being captured and recorded. In this case, the time between
events could be less than 300 ms. This could occur in cases where the
first event triggered quickly, such that the delta-V threshold (5 mph)
was exceeded in just a few milliseconds, but it is also possible that
it could occur anytime a subsequent time zero is detected before the
end of the first event. In these cases, the second event would start
the detection of the second trigger. It is the agency's intent that, in
these cases, the EDR capture separate events and not different portions
of a single event. Therefore, a method is needed to establish the end
of the first event, so the agency has turned to SAE J1698-1, Vehicle
Event Data Interface--Output Data Definition (March 2005), in resolving
this issue. SAE 1698-1 defines the end of an event as the moment at
which the cumulative delta-V within a 20 ms time period drops to 0.8
km/h (0.5 mph) or less. Thus, in this special case, the EDR would not
start looking for a new trigger threshold until the first event has
ended. The pre-crash data could be the same for both events.
Fourth, a subsequent event occurs with air bag deployment in cases
where there is a pre-event (meets trigger threshold of delta-V greater
than 5 mph) without an air bag deployment. The file associated with the
air bag must be recorded and locked. The pre-air bag event may be
recorded, but it is not necessary. We do not want the pre-crash event
to affect the decision-making of the microprocessor, which has the
primary function of analyzing the crash and properly deploying the air
bags.
d. Sampling Rates and Recording Intervals for Required Data Elements
The NPRM specified sampling rates and recording intervals for data
elements in order to standardize EDR data across the entire spectrum of
new makes and models of light vehicles. NHTSA received comments ranging
from general concerns about the frequency of the rates and intervals to
detailed comments concerning sampling rates and recording intervals.
GM, Ford, DaimlerChrysler, and Toyota commented that the sampling
rates and durations proposed in the NPRM are excessive in that the
large number of data elements and prolonged recording time at a very
high frequency rate will require memory storage capacity 5-10 times
greater than the current memory capacity provided by manufacturers that
have installed EDRs. These manufacturers further commented that
recording data in the manner specified in the NPRM will increase the
workload for the processor, which would most likely require an upgrade
for the microprocessor. These system upgrades would add to the cost of
complying with the data requirements.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ The commenters did not provide a specific cost estimate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To address the memory storage capacity and microprocessor issues,
GM, Ford, DaimlerChrysler, and Toyota recommended deleting several
elements, as mentioned above, and provided alternative recording
intervals/times and sample rates for specific data elements. In some
instances, the alternative recording intervals/times and sample rates
were suggested because their field experience shows no benefit to an
accident reconstructionist for the additional recording time.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ These elements include ``speed, vehicle indicated,''
``engine throttle, % full,'' and ``service brake''. For these
elements, Ford, DaimlerChrysler, and Toyota recommended reducing the
recording interval/time by three seconds from ``(-) 8 to 0 sec'' (as
proposed in the NPRM) to ``(-5) to 0 sec.'' GM proposed ``-2.5 to 0.
5 sec.'' All four commenters recommended reducing the sample rate
per second from ``2'' (as proposed in the NPRM) to ``1'' for these
data elements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other commenters suggested technical changes to the recording
times/intervals and sample rates for other reasons. Hyundai and Kia
requested that NHTSA perform a cost/benefit analysis for the data
elements with recording intervals from 150 ms to 500 ms after an event.
They see little degradation in the quality of data captured with the
shorter time period while the costs of implementation would be
considerably higher with the 500 ms requirement.
Delphi recommended that NHTSA change the recording period for all
acceleration data from 500 ms after an event to only 200 ms after an
event. Delphi recommended that NHTSA make the other related changes
necessary to reflect this change in recording period (e.g., allowing
the recorder to retrigger after 200 ms instead of after 500 ms).
Honda recommended changing the ``vehicle roll angle'' measurement
time interval from ``-1.0 to 6.0 sec'' to ``-1.0 to 0.5 sec.'' Honda's
rationale is that because the proposed 563.9(a) specified that the EDR
must collect data for an event starting at time zero and ending 500 ms
later, the interval for vehicle roll angle must be adjusted to the
required measurement time of 0.5 sec of a multi-crash event. Honda also
stated that the time of air bag deployment should be recorded during 0
to 500 ms to adjust to the acceleration measurement time. Honda
commented that an air bag deployment event cannot be recorded
separately while the acceleration after a trigger event is being
recorded.
While many automakers advocated for reducing the period of post-
crash recording, some advocacy groups, including Public Citizen,
suggested the opposite. Public Citizen stated that NHTSA should require
a longer period of post-crash recording once the trigger threshold is
met. Public Citizen's rationale is that the NPRM's current time limit
(0.5 second) would not record most data from rollover crashes (which
typically last several seconds) or important post-crash information for
non-rollover crashes. That organization also urged NHTSA to modify the
``safety belt status'' data element to record from one second prior to
an event to one second after an event. Public Citizen reasoned that
this timing would allow crash investigators to determine whether the
belt failed during a crash or whether the occupant intentionally
unbuckled it after a crash.
Advocates offered no specific technical comments for the EDR
recording times and sampling rates. However, Advocates commented that
the time durations must be sufficient to record the full event and
provide adequate data, especially in rollover crashes. Advocates did
acknowledge that there may be technological impediments or prohibitive
costs to capturing data for the entire duration of full crash events.
On the other hand,
[[Page 51020]]
IIHS indicated manufacturers may choose to forego or delay installing
EDR features because of the significant costs that may be involved in
recording extensive information on rollover angle, antilock brake
activity, and stability control status. IIHS, for example, questioned
the value of recording vehicle roll angle every 100 ms for one second
before a crash.
After carefully considering the comments, we have modified the
recording intervals for a number of data elements. We made three basic
modifications: (1) for the delta-V and acceleration data elements, we
have changed the recording time from -0.1 to 500 ms, as proposed, to 0
to 250 ms; (2) we changed the recording time from -8.0 to 0 sec, as
proposed, to -5.0 to 0 sec for the following data elements: ``speed,
vehicle indicated,'' ``engine throttle, % full,'' ``service brake, on/
off,'' ``engine, rpm,'' ``ABS activity,'' ``stability control,'' and
``steering input'; (3) we changed the recording time for ``vehicle roll
angle'' from -1.0 to 6 sec, as proposed, to -1.0 to 0.5 sec. Data
sample rates in the final rule are unchanged from our proposal.
Regarding the first modification, we changed the recording time for
the delta-V and acceleration elements based on the comments. We agree
with the commenters that recording these data elements for 500 ms
challenges the microprocessing system, raising the risk of losing a
complete crash record. We also believe that a lesser recording time
would still be sufficient for our purposes. Further research conducted
after our proposal indicates that the maximum delta-V will be reported
95% percent of the time with a recording time of 250 ms.\39\ Our
research also reveals that a 150 ms recording duration would not be
sufficient.\40\ Based upon this information, we believe that a 250 ms
recording time is sufficient for our purposes and also reduces the risk
of losing EDR data because of a system malfunction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ Niehoff, Peter, et al., Evaluation of Event Data Recorders
in Full Systems Crash Tests, ESV Paper No. 05-0271 (2005).
\40\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We also reduced the recording time for several data elements from -
8.0 to 0 seconds to -5.0 to 0 seconds. We believe that this
modification will further lessen the amount of data written to memory
by the EDR and reduce the workload for the microprocessor. We do not
believe that, for our purposes, the quality of data will significantly
be reduced by changing the recording time.
We have considered the comments concerning the recording interval
for ``vehicle roll angle.'' In the NPRM, we proposed a recording
interval from -1.0 to 6.0 seconds to allow for sufficient time to
monitor the vehicle's roll angle after the crash event. We reasoned
that recording up to 6 seconds after the crash event could be necessary
because in cases where a frontal crash occurs, the vehicle might
continue along some path for a second or more before it veers off the
road and possibly overturns. We also considered SAE J1698-1, which
classifies vehicle roll angle to be a high frequency data type with a
recording interval from -300 ms up to 750 ms, and IEEE P1616, which
specifies that ``roll rate'' and ``rollover'' data elements should be
collected between -8 to 5 seconds.
After carefully considering the comments concerning ``vehicle roll
angle,'' we have modified the final rule by removing the specified
recording interval for ``vehicle roll angle.'' We encourage vehicle
manufacturers to use SAE J1698-1 and IEEE P1616 as a guideline for
recording this data element. However, we have not included a specific
recording interval in the final rule. We are providing flexibility to
the automobile manufacturers that choose to record this data element.
If we required a longer recording interval, it is possible that the
costs would discourage automobile manufacturers from recording the data
element. On the other hand, if we specified a shorter recording
interval, we may not be provided with sufficient data for many crashes
with subsequent overturns.
3. EDR Data Standardization (Format) Requirements
The NPRM included a proposed section 563.8, which would require
that the data elements listed in Tables I and II of the NPRM, be
recorded in ``accordance with the range, accuracy, precision \41\, and
filter class specified in Table III.'' GM, DaimlerChrysler, Ford, and
Toyota submitted comments stating that these specifications (i.e.,
Table III of the NPRM) should not be included in the final rule. Other
commenters suggested that the final rule should require data
standardization and provided suggestions. Finally, GM, Ford,
DaimlerChrysler, Toyota, Honda, and Delphi also made specific comments
regarding the range, accuracy, and precision of acceleration data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ This term was changed to ``resolution'' in the final rule.
This change is technical, not substantive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
GM believes that these parameters are beyond what is currently
utilized in state-of-the-art EDRs to detect crashes, make deployment
decisions, and record crash severity data, and GM argued that such
provisions are not necessary to achieve the rule's safety benefits.
DaimlerChrysler, Ford and Toyota provided different reasoning to reach
the same conclusion as GM. They stated that NHTSA intended to use
present design and performance capabilities of existing sensors, rather
than to set new design and performance requirements. However, the
current specification in paragraph 563.8 would run counter to that
intent. Thus, DaimlerChrysler, Ford, and Toyota recommended that the
range, accuracy, precision, and filter class be determined by the
manufacturer for optimal restraint system performance, rather than EDR
performance.
Nissan, Mitsubishi, and ATA suggested that the final rule use the
SAE J1698 resolution attribute instead of requiring specific levels of
accuracy and precision. Nissan submitted a comment similar to other
automakers, stating that the accuracy and precision standards do not
correspond with current industry practice. If these accuracy and
precision standards are retained, Nissan suggested that NHTSA should
revise these standards to reflect present sensor performance
specifications of each system feeding the EDR. In addition to Nissan,
Mitsubishi requested that NHTSA consider SAE J1698 for the common
output format for event data. Mitsubishi stated that many automobile
manufacturers participated in creation of this standard to specify
optimal standard output formats. Similarly, the ATA commented that it
supports the use of standards developed by the SAE. As for filtering,
Nissan questioned the rationale for requiring data to be filtered in
accordance with SAE J211-1 before recording, instead of permitting
filtering after data retrieval.
Mr. Kast commented that, based on his studies of EDR data, some of
the data elements are not recorded at the necessary resolution,
accuracy, or duration to be of use (i.e., brake lights, acceleration,
change of speed (computed delta-V), speed-vehicle indicated). He
included a technical discussion of each element and the parameters
necessary to acquire useful data.
The ATA commented that data reliability must be assured.
Specifically, ATA is concerned that inaccurate or erroneous data could
result in incorrect assessments of the causes of accidents and of
liability. ATA indicated that NHTSA should validate the technological
ability to meet the
[[Page 51021]]
requirements as defined in Table III prior to any rulemaking. ATA
questioned whether the data elements would be part of a certification
process for a specified useful life or warranty period and whether
service schedules would include the EDR.
Several automobile manufacturers stated that the NPRM's required
range and precision for accelerometers exceeds industry standards and
are not currently commercially available. GM stated that the NPRM's
requirements would have the effect of doubling the range and that
increasing the accuracy would add significant costs not comprehended in
the agency's cost estimates. GM currently utilizes 50 G
accelerometers with an 8% accuracy. Ford, DaimlerChrysler, and Toyota
also stated that accelerometers, as proposed, are not the industry
norm, are not commercially available, and would increase the cost of
compliance.
Honda stated that the accuracy of mass-produced accelerometers used
in motor vehicles can be near 10%. Honda requested that the
final rule permit use of current G-sensors, which have ranges of 30 G
to 50 G instead of 100 G. Honda argued that the NPRM had suggested
these types of added costs were to be avoided. Honda also sought
clarification as to whether '' * * * it is correct to say that the
accuracy in Table III means only the recording error between the output
value of each sensor to the recording unit and the input value to the
retrieval tools?''
Delphi made similar comments, stating that the NPRM's range and
precision parameters for the longitudinal and lateral acceleration data
elements are ``substantially different than [those] typically chosen
for most crash sensing systems today.'' It stated that it would require
manufacturers to change existing systems, potentially resulting in
``sub-optimized system performance,'' to add separate sensors,
resulting in increased costs, or require manufacturers to choose not to
install an EDR. Delphi recommended that the normal acceleration element
should not have fixed parameters for range, accuracy, precision, and
sample rate. Instead, Delphi suggested that the value of those
parameters should be reported as elements of the data record.
Delphi commented that the accuracy requirements for accelerometers
should allow a margin for sources of error attributable to other
factors other than the accelerometers (e.g., alignment tolerances
between the axes of the accelerometer and the vehicle). Delphi
recommended that the accuracy requirement for longitudinal and lateral
acceleration should be no less than +/-6 percent. Delphi recommended
minimum limits of +/-50 G and 1 G be placed on the range and precision
parameters for the longitudinal and lateral acceleration data elements,
respectively and that the available range and precision of the sensors
be reported as data elements.
After carefully considering the comments, we have made a number of
modifications to the range and accuracy requirements for the
acceleration data elements. For these data elements, we proposed a
range of ``100 G to +100 G and an accuracy of +/-1 G. In the final
rule, the range and accuracy for the acceleration data elements is ``50
G to +50 G with an accuracy of +/-5 percent. Based on our research \42\
and the comments, we believe that the new range and accuracy
requirements are more realistic based upon what we now understand to be
commercially available for vehicle production. Our research also leads
us to believe that EDRs with accelerometers designed to meet these
requirements will be sufficient to analyze safety equipment
performance, a primary objective of this final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ Niehoff, Peter, et al., Evaluation of Event Data Recorders
in Full Systems Crash Tests, ESV Paper No. 05-0271 (2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We have considered the recommendation off Mitsubishi and ATA that
the final rule should use the SAE J1698 resolution attribute instead of
requiring specific levels of accuracy and precision. After evaluating
SAE J1698, we have concluded that the values in our proposal are nearly
identical to or are less stringent than those found in SAE J1698. Thus,
if an original equipment manufacturer were to use the SAE J1698 data
resolution guidelines, they would be in compliance with the
requirements of Table III.
4. EDR Data Retrieval and Whether To Require a Standardized Data
Retrieval Tool/Universal Interface
In the NPRM, we proposed requirements for EDR data retrieval (i.e.,
post-crash access to stored data). Under the NPRM's regulatory text
(Sec. 563.12), the manufacturer of a motor vehicle equipped with an EDR
would be required to furnish non-proprietary technical specifications
at a level of detail sufficient to permit companies that manufacture
diagnostic tools to develop and build a device capable of accessing,
retrieving, interpreting, and converting the data stored in the EDR.
The language would have required a manufacturer to submit the non-
proprietary technical specifications to NHTSA. We also requested
comments on alternative approaches.
Some commenters asked NHTSA to require standardization of data
retrieval methods, arguing that a standardized data retrieval protocol
will assist first responders and/or reduce cost. Other commenters
suggested that we consider another approach, other than furnishing non-
proprietary technical specifications to NHTSA, to achieve the goal of
making EDR retrieval tools available to crash investigators.
SISC, ATA, SEMA, Advocates, and AAA recommended standardized
retrieval methods so that emergency and first responder personnel can
have quick and easy access to EDR data. SISC requested a standardized
interface. SISC also believes that that retrieval of crash data in
rural areas would be facilitated by the lower costs and easier access
resulting from a single interface. For example, SISC suggested the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) standards for onboard diagnostics
of emission system performance. SEMA argued for a standardized
retrieval method but indicated that the data should not be vehicle-
specific.
AAA encouraged first responder access to data, but through ACN. AAA
commented that transferal of accurate location coordinates, speed
estimates, air bag deployment and other medically relevant information
to EMTs should be encouraged through ACN. To that end, AAA commented
that it supports NHTSA's proposal requiring manufacturers ``to provide
sufficient technical detail to companies that manufacture commercial
crash data retrieval systems.''
Commenters offered other arguments for standardizing EDR data
retrieval, including minimizing the ``tool-up'' costs and the
inconvenience of having different types of data retrieval methods for
each automaker. Three commenters referenced the On-Board Diagnostics
(OBD) systems, requesting or opposing similar protocols for the EDR
rule.
PCIAA stated that the regulatory objective should be to avoid
making EDR information access/retrieval more expensive and inconvenient
than necessary. PCIAA commented that the failure to require
standardization of the data retrieval method may preclude or diminish
the opportunity for broader applications of the technology by the
public and private sector. PCIAA further commented that NHTSA should
adopt a standard in its final rule that minimizes new tool-up and
licensing costs for the service and repair sectors. Because dealership
service centers and independent automotive repair businesses have made
significant
[[Page 51022]]
investments in recent years in scanner equipment to download or read
data from the OBD electronic interface point, PCIAA urged NHTSA to
consider requiring data retrieval through the OBD.
NADA and SEMA made similar comments, asking NHTSA to consider
setting standards for data retrieval communications protocols,
connectors, and tools, similar to those of OBD systems. Additionally,
SEMA argued that data access must include all data stored in the EDR,
not just NHTSA-mandated data. That organization argued that the vehicle
owner should be able to access all data stored in the EDR.
On the other hand, Injury Sciences is opposed to relying on OBD
protocols. Injury Sciences is opposed to relying on the connector as a
means of retrieval because it asserts that data collection via the OBD
works only if the electrical systems are intact. It argues that NHTSA
should articulate retrieval requirements in the numerous instances when
electrical systems are compromised and the extraction of data can only
be accomplished from connecting directly to the device storing the
information.
Simplifying retrieval methods and minimizing costs were two common
reasons suggested by commenters for standardizing EDR data retrieval,
with some commenters providing technical suggestions for EDR data
standardization. Public Citizen stated that NHTSA should standardize
extraction protocols, technology, and interface location to ensure that
data can be easily and quickly retrieved. Public Citizen believes that
these steps would reduce overall costs. Advocates commented that the
rule should require a uniform architecture for data retrieval.
Advocates supported standardizing the retrieval method, citing higher
costs for those retrieving data.
Garthe Associates commented that the rule should require a uniform,
non-contact retrieval method to rapidly and reliably download data.
Garthe Associates suggested the use of radio frequency identification
(RFID) or infrared (IR) for data retrieval. Garthe Associates also
suggested specifications for the retrieval technology. Garthe
Associates indicated numerous benefits of these technologies, including
rapid access to crash data by EMS personnel. According to Garthe
Associates, the estimated cost would be about $1/car.
Mr. Fink stated that the rule should require standard software for
downloading EDR data. He also commented that the same software and
hardware should be able to access data from vehicle EDRs and commercial
vehicle engine control modules. EPIC commented that the rule should
address real-time data collection, which will become widely prevalent
well before the proposed effective date for the rule.
GM asked NHTSA to alter its proposal for data retrieval. In the
NPRM, NHTSA proposed that each vehicle manufacturer must furnish non-
proprietary technical specifications at a level of detail sufficient to
permit companies that manufacture diagnostic tools to develop and build
a device capable of accessing, retrieving, interpreting, and converting
the data stored in the EDR. GM recommended that we instead allow
manufacturers to enter into a licensing agreement or provide other
means for the tool(s) required for retrieving the EDR data. GM argued
that aspects of EDR designs are often refined up to, and sometimes
after, the start of vehicle production. GM argues that the provision
would (1) potentially facilitate tampering with EDR data, (2) be
impractical to accomplish at 90 days before the start of production,
(3) result in a significant paperwork burden, (4) be unnecessary to
satisfy a limited market for EDR download devices, and (5) require
manufacturers to disclose proprietary information.
Comments provided by DaimlerChrysler, Ford and Toyota were nearly
identical to those of GM, except that they recommended that each
manufacturer be required to certify to NHTSA that it has licensed the
development of a download tool for each applicable vehicle. This is in
contrast to GM, which was also open to other means of ensuring that a
retrieval tool is available.
SEMA commented that NHTSA should require manufacturers to provide
information necessary for third parties to design and develop data
access tools and should require the manufacturer to make the tools
available to the public for a reasonable price and in a timely fashion.
Ford stated that NHTSA should promulgate requirements that
effectively prohibit tampering with EDRs and EDR data, because the
value of EDRs is predicated upon the integrity of the data they
contain.
Honda commented that the NPRM's proposal to require the submission
of data retrieval information no later than 90 days prior to the start
of production of EDR-equipped vehicles is problematic. Honda argues
that the modification or addition of information may become necessary
near the start of production due to the detection of an inaccuracy or
technical issue. Honda argued that under NHTSA's current proposal, a
manufacturer would have to provide NHTSA with updated information and
wait 90 days before it could start production with the modified EDR.
Honda would like to be able to change the EDR specifications as soon as
possible, and to produce vehicles equipped with the modified EDR as
soon as possible. Therefore, Honda recommended that the final rule
permit the submission of updated retrieval information as soon as it
can be provided and for production of vehicles with the modified EDR to
occur as soon as possible thereafter.
ATA commented that specifications for the EDR interface should be
provided to NHTSA but should not be part of the public domain. The ATA
commented that a mandated, standard interface would threaten privacy
rights. However, retrieval of data should be brief and should not
impede the continued utilization, maintenance or repair of the subject
vehicle.
More than one commenter recommended changing the phrase in the
``scope'' section of the regulatory text from ``it [the NPRM] also
specifies requirements for vehicle manufacturers to make publicly
available information that would enable crash investigators and
researchers to retrieve data from EDRs' to ``it also specifies
requirements for vehicle manufacturers to make commercially available
tools and/or methods that enable crash investigators and researchers to
retrieve data from EDRs.'' This change refers to the above comments
that automobile manufacturers should be only required to make retrieval
tools commercially available instead of having to furnish non-
proprietary technical specifications of the retrieval tools to the
agency, as proposed in the NPRM.
We have carefully considered the comments and recommended
alternatives on this issue, and determined that an alternative approach
will better meet the goal of ensuring that crash investigators are able
to retrieve data from EDRs. We believe that requiring manufacturers to
ensure by licensing agreement or other means that retrieval tools are
commercially available will be sufficient for the purposes of this
final rule. We believe that this revised approach will resolve concerns
about the release of proprietary information. It will also result in
less paperwork costs for the manufacturers.
Under our revised approach, we are no longer following the NPRM's
proposed requirement for vehicle manufacturers to submit information to
the public docket to allow third parties to manufacture a retrieval
tool for EDR data. Instead, the final rule requires
[[Page 51023]]
manufacturers and/or their licensees to make these tools commercially
available. We expect that these retrieval tools will be accessible
(i.e., for sale) for a reasonable period of time. That is, we
anticipate that: (1) Retrieval tools will be available for several
years after the vehicle whose EDR data it is designed to read has been
sold, or (2) the capability to read EDR data for such vehicles will be
integrated into a newer version of the tool, thereby making the new
retrieval tool ``backward-compatible.'' (We note that current download
tools designed for reading vehicle emissions-related data or engine-
control data have been designed to be backward-compatible, as has the
Vetronix Crash Data Retrieval (CDR) tool for reading EDR data.) We
anticipate that the movement toward backward-compatibility will
continue and that there will be no issues associated with downloading
EDR data from older vehicles covered by the EDR regulation set forth in
this final rule. If this trend does not continue, the agency will
consider appropriate action, as necessary.
We are requiring the tool(s) to be commercially available not later
than 90 days after the first sale of the motor vehicle for purposes
other than resale. This addresses the timing concerns raised by
commenters. Given that the retrieval tools will be commercially
available, we do not believe it will be difficult to obtain information
about how to obtain them.
We have considered the comments asking us to require a standardized
retrieval tool (or standardized retrieval software and hardware). In
consideration of this issue, we assessed the comments concerning
whether we should require a retrieval system similar to or utilizing
the EPA/OBD protocols (68 FR 38427, June 27, 2003). However, such a
requirement is beyond the scope of this rulemaking, since we did not
propose to require a uniform retrieval tool in the NPRM. We do not
believe that a uniform retrieval tool is necessary to achieve the
purposes of this rulemaking. We believe that intended users will be
able to access EDR data by our requiring manufacturers to ensure that
retrieval tools are commercially available.
We recognize, however, that there are potential benefits to
standardizing the means of downloading EDR data. This could facilitate
the future use of EDRs by first responders and possibly result in lower
costs. This is an area that could potentially be addressed by voluntary
organizations such as SAE and IEEE.
We have considered NADA's and SEMA's comments that we should
require access to all data stored in the EDR. However, we believe that
it would not be appropriate to mandate the processing and storage for
data that we currently have determined are not necessary for our goals
of analyzing the performance of safety equipment, improving crash
reconstruction, and enabling ACN.
Additionally, we did not propose to require that vehicle owners
have the ability of directly accessing EDR data. However, the
requirement that vehicle manufacturers ensure that retrieval tools are
commercially available should make it easier for vehicle owners to
indirectly access stored EDR data.
We considered the comments by Garthe and Siemens regarding a
standardized, non-contact retrieval method. However, we did not propose
the implementation of such technology in the NPRM, and will not include
it in this final rule. Requiring automobile manufacturers to install a
non-contact retrieval method is not necessary to achieve our stated
purposes for this rulemaking.
We have considered ATA's comments regarding access to EDR data, and
we address this issue in our section on ``Privacy Issues.'' With regard
to ATA's comments on mandating for brief retrieval we presently have
not gathered sufficient information to mandate the brevity with which
EDR data can be retrieved.
We have considered the comments recommending that we address
potential tampering with EDRs. We currently do not have information
that leads us to believe that tampering with EDRs is a problem that
necessitates us to develop requirements in this area. We may revisit
this issue if we find that EDR tampering becomes a problem. However, we
do believe one aspect of EDR design will discourage tampering. We are
requiring that the captured file be locked for crashes that involve air
bags. The locked file will be preserved and the file cannot be
overwritten.
5. EDR Survivability and Crash Test Performance Requirements
In the NPRM, we stated that if EDRs are to provide useful
information, they must function properly during a crash, and that data
must survive the crash. Accordingly, we proposed to require that EDRs
meet specified requirements during and after the crash tests in FMVSS
Nos. 208, 214, and 301. We also proposed that the data must be
retrievable for not less than 30 days after the test and without
external power. We chose not to propose more extensive survivability
requirements, such as requiring EDRs to survive extreme crashes, fire,
or fluid immersion.
GM, DaimlerChrysler, Ford, Toyota, Nissan, and AIAM argued that in
order to test for EDR survivability, as proposed in the NPRM, vehicles
would have to be tested with engines running and various vehicle
systems activated, presenting a danger to test personnel. Such tests
also risk damaging test facilities, instrumentation, and photographic
equipment resulting from fuel, oil, and/or battery fluid spillage.
To solve this perceived problem, GM, DaimlerChrysler, Ford, and
Toyota proposed an alternative approach to EDR crash survivability
(i.e., a simulated laboratory test to verify EDR recording function and
certification by engineering analysis to ensure sufficient energy
reserve).\43\ According to the four commenters, the NPRM's current
dynamic testing requirements for EDRs would greatly increase testing
costs. GM, DaimlerChrysler, Ford, and Toyota also argued that the crash
test provisions would not fulfill their intended purpose and that the
provisions are unnecessary since the EDR function is typically co-
located in the restraint control module.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ Specifically, GM recommended replacing the proposed
language in paragraph 563.10, Crash Test Performance and
Survivability, with the following language:
The data elements required by sec. 563.7 must be recorded so
that they can be downloaded in the format specified by sec. 563.8;
exist at the completion of the simulated test, and be retrievable by
the methodology specified by the vehicle manufacturer under sec.
563.12 for not less than 30 days after the simulated test, and the
``complete data recorded'' element must read ``yes'' after the test.
A simulated test for the purposes of this subsection consists of
laboratory methods to provide data bus input representative of FMVSS
[Nos.] 208 and 214 crash tests to the vehicle data bus, so that the
EDR recording function can be verified. For those data elements not
specified by FMVSS [Nos.] 208 and 214 (i.e., throttle angle, braking
input, etc.), manufacturers will furnish simulated signals. In
addition, manufacturers must certify through engineering analysis or
other means that sufficient energy reserve exists in the subject
module to ensure that all design-intended functions, including the
deployment of restraint system components and the complete recording
of EDR data elements as specified by this regulation, are fully
supported in the event of power loss to the module from the
vehicle's battery supply at any point following time zero, as
defined by this regulation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nissan stated that the NPRM's proposed regulatory text needs to be
amended to reflect that engine RPM and throttle information will not be
available in crash tests, which are performed without fuel. AIAM
recommended clarifying the rule to indicate that EDR performance does
not require the engine to be running and that, as a result, some data
elements may not be recorded.
[[Page 51024]]
GM, DaimlerChrysler, Ford, Toyota commented that storing crashed
vehicles for 30 days following a test to ensure retrievability of data
is impractical and unnecessary. These commenters stated that it is
unreasonable to require data to be retrievable without external battery
supply for 30 days, because current EDRs use external battery supplies
to retrieve post-crash data. According to the commenters, the NPRM's
requirements would necessitate adding a battery to the module, which
would add significant cost and risk damage to the module circuitry due
to electrolyte leakage. They also argued that this requirement for 30-
day retrievability is unnecessary to meet the safety purposes of
furnishing additional data to aid in crash investigations.
AIAM commented that the proposed regulatory text is not clear as to
whether data must be retrievable without external power for up to 30
days. AIAM suggested that the final rule should be clarified to require
the EDR to store data without external power for up to 30 days but to
permit an external power source for data retrieval.
Nissan sought clarification for two issues related to
survivability: (1) Whether an alternate power source would be required
to ensure that the EDR is able to record up to 11 seconds of post-crash
data; and (2) whether sensors would be expected to survive crashes to
ensure delivery of data to the EDR. Mitsubishi stated that the final
rule should not require data survivability in cases where there is a
cut-off in the power supply or destruction of the electronic control
unit. Mitsubishi argued that it is not technically feasible to require
data recording if power is no longer directly supplied to the ECU.
EPIC and the ATA made general comments regarding the survivability
of EDRs. EPIC commented that EDR reliability is essential, ensuring
that proper functioning of EDR systems becomes more critical as third
parties (e.g., insurance companies and prosecutors) are provided access
to EDR data. EPIC expressed concern that the level of survivability
called for in the NPRM may not be sufficient to ensure reliable data.
EPIC suggested text for the owner's manual encouraging owners to have
the EDR inspected after a crash. ATA commented that EDRs must function
properly during and after the specified crash tests.
Several commenters gave specific suggestions for crash
survivability. NADA commented that the rule should take into account
EDR reparability and restoration. Advocates commented that the rule
should require the EDR to be located in the passenger compartment in
order to increase survivability. Hyundai and Kia commented that the
rule should not require repositioning air bag control units to achieve
crash survivability unless the repositioning would not adversely affect
performance of the systems.
Public Citizen and NTSB commented that the NPRM does not include
requirements to ensure that the EDR will survive fire, fluid immersion,
and severe crashes. To remedy this perceived deficiency, Public Citizen
suggested that EDRs should be subjected to a rollover crash test or
that they should meet survivability tests similar to those for airliner
and locomotive ``black boxes.'' Public Citizen stated it is important
that EDR data from severe crashes not be lost since such crashes may
result in fatalities.
We have carefully considered the comments regarding our testing
requirements, and the commenters' position that requiring dynamic
testing, as proposed, would be impracticable. After reviewing the
comments from the manufacturers, we disagree that it is impracticable
to require basic EDR crash survivability. However, we agree that
certain proposed data elements cannot be recorded unless the crash
tests are conducted with the engine running and vehicle systems
activated. Those data elements are: ``Engine RPM'' and ``Engine
Throttle % Full.'' At present, FMVSS Nos. 208 and 214 tests are not
conducted with the engine running; compliance crash tests are only
conducted with battery connected and vehicle systems activated. It was
not our intention to propose any testing requirements beyond FMVSS Nos.
208, 214, and 301. Testing with the engine running could create
hazardous conditions for the test engineers. Therefore, we agree that
``Engine RPM'' and ``Engine Throttle % Full'' cannot be recorded in
current crash tests. We have modified the final rule to account for
these concerns.
As a result of our analysis of this issue, we have also realized
that the braking input data element ``service brake on/off'' is not
specified in FMVSS crash tests. Accordingly, there is no practical way
to require manufacturers to test the survivability of this data element
in the FMVSS Nos. 208 and 214 tests. Because there is no current way to
test for these there elements, we have modified the final rule
accordingly.
After reviewing the comments, we believe that our proposal to
require that data elements be retrievable for not less than 30 days
after the test and without external power confused some commenters. We
intended the proposed requirement that data be retrievable within 30
days without external power to simply mean that the EDR data must be
stored and saved in the system for at least 30 days without external
power. This was not intended to mean that 30 days after the date of the
crash, a crash investigator must be able to download the stored data
with a download tool without an external power supply. We have modified
the rule to clarify our original intentions.
The final rule also modifies the number of days we will require EDR
data to be retrievable after the crash test. Manufacturers have
indicated that it usually takes three to seven days to complete the
task of crash test data analysis and validation. Based upon this
information, we believe that requiring that EDR data be retrievable up
to 10 days better reflects the manufacturer's time frame of crash
testing. We agree with manufacturers, based on this information, that a
30-day requirement would require additional vehicle storage.
Accordingly, we have modified the final rule.
We have also considered the comments regarding EDR survivability in
severe crashes or crashes involving fire or fluid immersion; however,
we have not changed our position on requiring EDR survivability in
these extreme cases. In the NPRM, we stated that EDR data from such
crashes would be useful, but we do not have sufficient information to
propose survivability requirements that would address such crashes. We
also stated that countermeasures that would ensure the survivability of
EDR data in fires might be costly. We have not engaged in research to
promulgate survivability requirements for EDR data in these extreme
cases. Moreover, we reiterate that the most important benefits of EDR
data comes from enabling ACN and composite analysis, and we believe
that this final rule will allow researchers to gather sufficient EDR
data of statistical significance. We believe that we can meet the
objectives of this rulemaking without requiring EDR survivability in
extreme crashes.
The comments of Ford, GM, Daimler Chrysler, and Toyota on EDR
survivability also recommended deleting subsections (a)-(c) of the
proposed regulatory text in Sec. 563.10. These commenters proposed an
alternative testing protocol, as discussed above. The manufacturers
recommended that a simulated test for data bus input of FMVSS Nos. 208
and 214 be performed at room temperature and that the EDR data be
stored at room temperature for 30 days after the tests.
[[Page 51025]]
We believe that testing requirements, as proposed by the manufacturers,
would not be sufficient to meet our basic survivability requirements.
These basic survivability requirements in the final rule, which will
include the crash tests in FMVSS Nos. 208 and 214, are critical to
verifying the performance and accuracy of EDRs because they reflect a
controlled crash environment. The simulated tests recommended by the
manufacturers for EDR crash survivability do not expose the EDR to a
real crash environment. After carefully considering the comments, we
believe that ensuring basic EDR survivability by requiring that EDRs
meet specified requirements in accordance with FMVSS Nos. 208 and 214
tests remains the best approach to ensure EDR survivability.
We have, however, modified our crash test requirements in light of
the comments we have received and in consideration of further
information we have obtained. We have deleted the test associated with
FMVSS No. 301. We believe that since most EDRs and other vehicle
electrical systems are located in the front part of the vehicle, there
is little chance that crash forces to the rear of the vehicle will
affect EDR operation. Also, in the FMVSS No. 301 test, no air bags are
deployed, so elements related to air bag deployment, that make up the
vast majority the data collected by the EDR, are not collected.
Also, we have decided not to require EDRs to meet requirements
during crash tests listed under S13 of Sec. 571.208, as we proposed in
the NPRM. The tests specified in S13 of Sec. 571.208 are currently
subject to be gradually phased-out. After further consideration, we
believe that the tests in FMVSS Nos. 208 and 214 will be sufficient to
determine EDR survivability.
The agency notes that in some FMVSS No. 214 tests (i.e., for
vehicles equipped with only longitudinal delta-V sensors), the
longitudinal trigger threshold may not be met because there may not be
sufficient delta-V in that direction. For tests conducted pursuant to
FMVSS No. 214, we would not expect the vehicle's EDR to record data
unless the manufacturer records delta-V, lateral or any air bag
(frontal, side, other) deploys.
Our final rule represents tests that we believe will be sufficient
to ensure basic EDR survivability. Furthermore, we would like to
emphasize that this rule is not requiring any additional crash tests
than what is currently required by existing FMVSSs. Tests for EDR crash
survivability simply piggyback on test requirements for existing
FMVSSs.
6. Compliance Date
In the NPRM, we proposed an effective date of September 1, 2008 for
the EDR regulation. We proposed this date with the intention of
providing manufacturers adequate lead time to make design changes to
their EDRs as part of their regular production cycle, minimizing costs.
Almost all of the commenters on this issue believed that the proposed
lead time was insufficient and/or would result in unnecessarily high
costs, with most suggesting a phase-in beginning in 2008.
GM, Ford, DaimlerChrysler, and Toyota stated if NHTSA issued a
final rule for EDRs by September 1, 2005, that is consistent with their
recommendations, they could support a four year phase-in beginning
September 1, 2008 (10% of vehicle production at year 1, 25% at year 2,
60% at year 3, and 100% at year 4). GM added that if the rule is
appreciably different from its recommendations, it might need
additional lead time to achieve compliance. GM reasoned that its
recommended four-year phase-in would be an ``aggressive'' schedule
because manufacturers would need to redesign, revalidate, and retool
virtually every restraint control module, add greater power capability
to those modules, and, in many cases, redesign the entire electrical
architecture of the vehicle. Ford, DaimlerChrysler, and Toyota
commented that their vehicle electrical/electronic architecture
designs, which influence EDR feasibility, are presently being committed
and cannot be readily changed for vehicles in model years before 2008.
Hyundai and Kia commented that a four year phase-in period after the
September 1, 2008 start date will be necessary to implement the design
changes needed to meet the rule as proposed.
Honda and Mitsubishi recommended that the effective date of the
regulation should be no sooner than September 1st of the third year
after publication of a final rule, with a phase-in period starting on
that date. Honda's rationale is that it would be very difficult for all
manufacturers to simultaneously develop and install compliant EDRs on
all models by September 1, 2008.
Subaru commented that the NPRM underestimates the time necessary
for implementation. Because Subaru would have to acquire new memory
devices, develop backup power sources, and possibly redesign its air
bag system, Subaru requested additional lead time and a phase-in
schedule for recording certain data elements. Subaru commented that its
most state-of-the-art EDR technology is still not mature enough to meet
all the proposed requirements. For example, its current air bag sensors
do not meet the range and accuracy requirements. Subaru stated that it
would probably remove all data recording rather than risk noncompliance
if the rule were implemented as proposed.
NADA commented that the rule should adopt a phased-in approach with
multiple effective dates requiring that certain data recording
capabilities be implemented in the near term, with additional data
collection capabilities considered for the longer term. AIAM also
commented that additional lead time would be necessary to meet the
accuracy and precision requirements as proposed in the NPRM, due to the
complexity of the required changes. AIAM suggested that the regulation
should take effect with a pared down data set no sooner than the
September 1st, three years after publication of the final rule and that
the regulation should allow for a substantial phase-in period. If the
final rule includes the complete set of proposed data elements, a
longer lead time would be necessary. SISC commented we should provide
sufficient lead time so that manufacturers can transition to multi-axis
accelerometers (to ensure collection of lateral acceleration).
We have considered the comments regarding our proposed effective
date. Based upon the comments, we have decided to require covered
vehicles manufactured on our after September 1, 2010 to comply with the
requirements of this final rule. We believe that a lead time in excess
of four years, particularly given the revised technical requirements,
should prove adequate for all vehicle manufacturers and all vehicle
lines, without the need for a phase-in. Vehicle manufacturers may
voluntarily comply with the final rule prior to this date.
7. Privacy Issues
The NPRM acknowledged that the recording of information by EDRs
raises a number of potential privacy issues. These include the question
of who owns the information that has been recorded, the circumstances
under which other persons may obtain that information, and the purposes
for which those other persons may use that information.
In the NPRM, we stated that our rulemaking would not create any
privacy problems. We explained that NHTSA would first obtain permission
from the vehicle's owner before using the data. Furthermore, we believe
that our objectives can be met by using a very brief snapshot of EDR
data surrounding a crash. A broader use of
[[Page 51026]]
EDR data is not necessary for us to gather information or use EDR data.
Many issues raised by commenters concerning privacy arise from the
misconception that EDRs record data for prolonged intervals and
personal information to study driver behavior. We noted in the NPRM
that we were not proposing to require personal or location
identification information. We also explained that we were proposing to
standardize EDR data recording for an extremely short duration (i.e., a
few seconds immediately before and after a crash). We did not propose
to require data for prolonged recording intervals (i.e., several
minutes) or audio/visual data that the public may associate with event
data recorders in other modes of transportation, such as flight data
recorders or locomotive event recorders. However, we note that another
DOT agency, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), is
currently engaged in rulemaking that would facilitate the use a
different type of device, known as electronic on-board recorders
(EOBRs), for documenting the hours of service of commercial drivers.
In the NPRM, we expressed our sensitivity to privacy concerns,
especially in relation to how we handle EDR data. We explained that
NHTSA would first obtain a verbal release from the vehicle owner before
using the data and fully comply with federal privacy law in its use of
the information. Access to EDR data would not be affected by this
rulemaking and would continue to be provided in limited situations.
Furthermore, the design would most likely preclude public access to the
EDR data because the interfaces will likely be located in the vehicle's
passenger compartment.
Some commenters argued that public safety outweighs any potential
privacy issue or argued that privacy concerns were adequately addressed
in the NPRM. Several individuals commented that the government and
others will use EDRs to invade privacy. Still others identified privacy
issues, but took differing positions on how to and who should address
privacy concerns.
GM, Ford, DaimlerChrysler, and Toyota commented that a FMVSS
requiring EDR installation would permit the life-saving benefits of
EDRs to be properly balanced, at the national level, with societal
interests involving privacy and disclosure. These four commenters
argued that unless there is Federal leadership, individual States will
continue to regulate in the area of EDR privacy (e.g., through
disclosure requirements). According to these automakers, unless this
issue is dealt with comprehensively at the Federal level, the result
could be a patchwork of State laws that would leave manufacturers in
the untenable position of providing unique EDR systems and complying
with disclosure language provisions on a State-by-State basis.
EPIC commented that the NPRM inadequately protects the privacy of
vehicle owners. According to EPIC, NHTSA has the responsibility to
provide basic privacy protections and to clearly communicate to the
public how EDR technology will be used. EPIC predicted that failure to
do this would expose the rule to legal and political challenges. EPIC
suggested that the rule should explicitly recognize the vehicle owner
as the owner of EDR data. Moreover, EPIC expressed concern that many
EDR systems currently record the complete VIN, including the serial
number portion that can be used as a personal identifier.
Several individuals commented on privacy and EDRs. Mr. Crutchfield,
whose comments were representative of such commenters, expressed
concern regarding the collection and use of EDR data. He argued that
EDRs have no safety purpose and will be used to increase government
revenues from fines, to increase rates or deny coverage by insurance
companies, to justify seizure of private property, and to discriminate
against individuals based on race, gender, age, regional origin, and
socio-economic status.
Mr. Leggett, an individual, commented on the collection and use of
EDR data. He suggested that EDRs should be designed so that vehicle
owners can remove them and that there should be no legal penalty for
doing so. He also requested that the rule prohibit the use of EDR data
in criminal and civil actions or by insurance companies. Mr. Leggett
stated that the rule should specifically state that insurance companies
may not require the use of EDRs, to ensure that the use of EDRs remains
voluntary.
Mr. King, an individual, commented that the rule should either
provide protections for the vehicle owner (the presumptive data owner)
or should be delayed until the passage of legislation addressing the
issue. Mr. Lashway, along with fifty-two other individuals, commented
that EDRs will be used to intrude into the privacy of individuals.
Several commenters indicated that the ability to turn off or
disable recording would resolve their concerns. Several also indicated
that requiring written consent to acquire the data would be an
acceptable solution. Some individuals commented that the EDR data are
not reliable enough, thereby creating a danger to individuals
confronted with countering the data in court. Commenters also suggested
that vehicle purchasers should be provided with adequate notice about
EDRs and EDR data at the time of first sale.
SEMA commented that NHTSA should recognize that EDR data is the
sole property of the vehicle owner. According to SEMA, a court order or
consent of the vehicle owner should be required before EDR data may be
released to insurance companies or before vehicle-specific data could
be released to law enforcement. SEMA stated that an owner's consent
could be provided prospectively via a form at the time of purchase
(similar to current contracts for OnStar[supreg] subscriptions).
Gelco commented that EDR data may contain personal information and
may be easily accessible in the passenger compartment. Therefore, Gelco
requested that the final rule explicitly or implicitly limit the access
of the owner, lessor, or lessee to the data.
The ATA commented that NHTSA should address privacy issues or
coordinate with other appropriate Federal agencies to ensure that such
issues are addressed. The ATA stated that it supports the practice of
obtaining consent from the vehicle owner and commented that the data
should be exempt from the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The ATA
also expressed concern that a standard interface would make access to
EDR data too easily accessible.
Canada Safety Council commented that ownership of EDR data is
unclear and that the issue needs to be resolved by legislators in the
near future. The Council also commented that under the NPRM, emergency
medical service personnel would not have easy access to crash severity
data.
Wyle Laboratories commented that NHTSA should consider
certification of independent laboratories for EDR data management.
Wyle's rationale is that such certification would facilitate data
retrieval, validation, and distribution and would help protect the
rights of each party with an interest in the data (e.g., manufacturer,
owner, insurance carrier, regulator, and law enforcement agency).
The ATA commented that, in contrast to what the NPRM states, much
of the data is proprietary to the motor carrier or commercial vehicle
operator. The ATA predicted that the volume of data that will be
produced would: (1) Increase the likelihood that unskilled or untrained
personnel would be involved in data analysis; (2) result in a
misunderstanding or incorrect interpretation of data; (3) result in a
use of erroneous data; and (4) lead to
[[Page 51027]]
obtaining and using data for purposes other than to improve vehicle,
driver, and highway safety. Accordingly, the ATA suggested an
appropriate level of training should be required to access, collect,
and protect EDR data, especially considering the types and numbers of
events that might warrant event data collection.
AAA commented that law enforcement should have access to the data
where a crash results in serious injury or fatality. AAA also commented
that rules or laws need to be adopted to prohibit access to EDR data
without a court order or permission from the owner. However, AAA did
comment that EDR data that cannot be tied to a specific vehicle should
be generally available for research purposes.
National Motorists Association commented that it is inappropriate
for EDR data to be used for criminal prosecutions and by insurance
companies. The Association also expressed concern that EDR data is
unreliable, which exacerbates the danger of its use for those purposes.
Advocates commented that resolution of privacy issues should be
left to the courts.
Injury Sciences and Public Citizen did not view privacy concerns as
an impediment to the EDR rule. Injury Sciences stated that it believes
the NPRM provides adequate consideration and protection for the privacy
of the individual. While acknowledging the importance of ensuring
privacy, Public Citizen also did not see the EDR rule as raising a
significant privacy concern. Public Citizen's comments suggested that
``public health'' data provided by EDRs outweighs these privacy
concerns. Public Citizen's rationale is that NHTSA already collects and
uses EDR data, so the rule does not raise new privacy issues.
Furthermore, Public Citizen stated that the NPRM addresses some
existing privacy concerns by requiring a statement in the owner's
manual to inform consumers as to the presence and role of the EDR in
their vehicle.
We have reviewed all of the comments regarding privacy and EDRs. As
to comments concerning our planned use of EDR data, we hope that our
continued efforts to educate and inform the public will help to correct
any public misconceptions about the type of data that EDRs record and
how that information is used.
We stated in the NPRM that we are careful to protect privacy in our
own use of EDR data. We obtain consent from the vehicle owner to gain
access to EDR data. Furthermore, we assure the owner that all
personally identifiable information will be held confidential. In
handling this information, the agency does not make public any
information contained in these records which has the potential to
either directly or indirectly identify individuals, except as
specifically required by law. Furthermore, prior to the release of
information from databases containing EDR data (usually aggregated
reports), the agency strips out the last six characters of the VIN
(i.e., the portion that would allow identification of a specific
vehicle and, potentially by indirect means, the identity of the
vehicle's current owner). Therefore, we believe that the agency has
taken adequate steps to ensure individual privacy vis-a-vis its use of
EDR data.
We understand that EDRs can generate concerns related to how EDR
data are currently used or will be used by entities other than NHTSA.
As we stated in the NPRM, our role in protecting privacy is a limited
one. While we remain sensitive to the public debate about EDRs and the
use of EDR data, we do not have statutory authority to address many
privacy issues, which are generally matters of State and Federal law
that we do not administer. These privacy issues were not created by
this rulemaking (e.g., whether the vehicle owner owns the EDR data, how
EDR data can be used/discovered in criminal/civil litigation, whether
EDR data may be obtained by the police). EDRs have existed since the
1970s, and our rulemaking on EDRs standardizes technology that has
existed, in some cases, for decades.
Other issues beyond the scope of this rulemaking include access to
EDR data (including by law enforcement) and training of individuals to
handle EDR data. As to Wylie Lab's comments, we did not propose
certifying independent labs to handle downloaded EDR data for NHTSA,
and we do not have a present need for such analysis.
As noted earlier, we are not requiring or prohibiting on/off
switches. Given that we are not requiring EDRs, we do not believe it
would be appropriate to prohibit on/off switches. However, such
switches could reduce the benefits from EDRs. Therefore, we believe it
would be inappropriate to require such switches.
We considered Mr. Leggett's comment concerning the reliability of
EDRs in trials and other adjudicatory proceedings; however, we note
that disputes about these issues are most appropriately resolved in
individualized adjudications as needed.\44\ We are presently concerned
with the reliability of EDR data only as it relates to our stated
purposes of the analysis of safety equipment performance,
reconstructing crashes, and fostering the development of ACN. We
believe that the range, resolution, and accuracy standardization
requirements are representative of current industry standards that are
generally accepted in the industry, which we discussed in further
detail above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ See, e.g., Bachman v. General Motors Corp., 776 N.E.2d 262
(Ill. App. Ct. 2002); Matos v. State, No. 4D03-2043 (Fla. Cir. Ct.,
Mar. 30, 2005); People v. Hopkins, No. 2004-0338 (N.Y. Co. Ct., Aug.
30, 2004); Kevin Schlosser, ``Black Box'' Evidence, 231 N.Y. L. J.
(Jan. 25, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EDR technology continues to evolve, and public discussion about
EDRs will continue. We hope to help address these concerns and foster
continued acceptance of EDRs by requiring manufacturers of vehicles
equipped with EDRs to include a standardized statement in the owner's
manual, as discussed below. We also hope to establish an internet
public education program to correct perceived public misunderstanding
related to EDRs.
8. Owner's Manual Disclosure Statement
In the NPRM, we proposed to require the following disclosure
statement to be included in the owner's manual of vehicles that have an
EDR:
>This vehicle is equipped with an event data recorder. In the
event of a crash, this device records data related to vehicle
dynamics and safety systems for a short period of time, typically 30
seconds or less. These data can help provide a better understanding
of the circumstances in which crashes and injuries occur and lead to
the designing of safer vehicles. This device does not collect or
store personal information.
We proposed this disclosure statement in an effort to educate the
public about EDRs, i.e., to inform consumers about the circumstances
under which EDRs record data and the reasons why EDR data is collected.
All commenters on this issue generally supported our proposal to
require an EDR disclosure statement for consumers. We received several
suggestions regarding the text and placement of that disclosure
statement. Some thought that the language in the NPRM needed
augmentation (or a complete rewrite) to address issues such as privacy,
preemption, and ownership of and access to EDR data. We also received
comments with proposed text to address telematic features, such as ACN,
and specifically OnStar[reg].
GM expressed support for requiring a standardized EDR disclosure
statement in the owner's manual. However, GM recommended expanding the
statement to more fully inform consumers (e.g., by
[[Page 51028]]
providing examples of the type of information recorded, explanation
that no recording occurs under normal driving conditions, and an
explanation of download protocols) and to respond to issues currently
being addressed at the State level (e.g., access to EDR data). In light
of the above, GM also suggested that the disclosure statement should
inform consumers if their vehicle is equipped with a telematic system
that may collect personal and/or vehicle information. GM recommended
the following disclosure statement:
This vehicle is equipped with an event data recorder (EDR). The
main purpose of an EDR is to record, in certain crash or near crash-
like situations, such as an air bag deployment or hard braking, data
that will assist in understanding how a vehicle's systems performed.
The EDR is designed to record data related to vehicle dynamics and
safety systems for a short period of time, typically 30 seconds or
less. The EDR in this vehicle is designed to record such data as:
How various systems in your vehicle were operating;
Whether or not the driver and passenger safety belts
where buckled/fastened;
How far (if at all) the driver was depressing the
accelerator and/or brake pedal; and,
How fast the vehicle was traveling.
These data can help provide a better understanding of the
circumstances in which crashes and injuries occur. NOTE: EDR data
are recorded by your vehicle only if a crash or near crash situation
occurs; no data are recorded by the EDR under normal driving
conditions.
To read data recorded by an EDR, special equipment is required
and access to the vehicle or the EDR is required. In addition to the
vehicle manufacturer, other parties, such as law enforcement, that
have the special equipment, can read the information if they have
access to the vehicle or the EDR.
[If the vehicle is equipped with telematic system(s), the
following statement must also be included in the owner's manual.]
Your vehicle may be equipped with onboard telematics that
provide safety and convenience services such as GPS-based navigation
or cellular wireless connectivity, and your vehicle may collect
personal or vehicle information to provide such services. Please
check the service's subscription agreement or manual for information
about its data collection.
According to GM, the NPRM's owner's manual language may not be
sufficient to obviate or to preempt current or future State disclosure
requirements. GM's recommended disclosure statement also omits
reference to ``personal information,'' as we proposed in the NPRM,
because GM believes that phrase is potentially ambiguous.
Comments from DaimlerChrysler, Ford, and Toyota were similar to
GM's comments, although they differed in two areas. Each recommended
that the EDR rule permit vehicle manufacturers to supplement the
required language with additional information that the manufacturers
deem appropriate for their respective vehicle designs. Each also
omitted the language GM included related to telematic systems.
SEMA, Advocates, and Mr. Bruce Funderberg commented that customers
should be notified if a vehicle is equipped with an EDR prior to
purchasing the vehicle. SEMA stated that vehicle dealers should be
required to notify consumers about EDRs, consistent with State and
local laws and that subscription services (e.g., OnStar[supreg]) should
be required to notify purchasers of the types of EDR information that
may be transmitted and to whom the data would be provided.\45\
According to Advocates, NHTSA should require dealers to provide a copy
of the statement to purchasers at the time of sale along with a
brochure written in both English and Spanish. Advocates also supported
the use of additional methods to educate the public about EDRs, such as
public service announcements, agency publications, and NHTSA's Web
site. Mr. Funderburg, an individual, commented on vehicle owners' lack
of knowledge about EDRs, suggesting that manufacturers need to provide
better notice to purchasers about EDRs. He also recommended that the
EDR should be optional equipment that purchasers may decline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ SEMA suggested the following disclosure language:
This recorded data may not be retrieved or downloaded by anyone
other than the owner of the vehicle except in certain specific
circumstances: (1) With the consent of the owner; (2) by court
order; (3) by an authorized person for purposes related to improving
vehicle safety provided the identity of the registered owner or
driver is not disclosed and the information is of a non-vehicle
specific nature; or (4) the data is retrieved for the purpose of
determining the need or facilitation of emergency medical response.
In cases where vehicles are equipped with a recording device as
part of a subscription service, the fact that information may be
recorded or transmitted must be disclosed in the subscription
service agreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPIC commented that the notice to owners should be more specific
about the ownership of and access to EDR data. EPIC also commented that
ACN systems present unique privacy issues, stating ``for EDRs that use
communications systems--such as OnStar[supreg], which uses wireless
phone networks--the EDR should not initiate communication unless an
accident is detected or if the driver uses a manual feature to initiate
communications for purposes of transmitting driving data.'' \46\ EPIC
commented:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ EPIC proposed the following additional text for the
statement in the owner's manual for vehicles that contain ACN or an
EDR connected to a communications network:
The event data recorder is connected to a communication system
capable of automatically contacting emergency services when it
detects an accident. The event data recorder will only initiate
communication in the event of an accident or if the driver uses the
manual feature to initiate communication with either emergency
services or the communications provider (e.g., for a service that
provides driving directions from an operator).
Consent of the vehicle owner should be required for the
disclosure of EDR driving data to the NHTSA or any other government
or commercial organization, including automotive insurance
companies. Such consent should be fully consensual, meaning for
example that automotive insurance contracts should not be
conditioned upon access to EDR data.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ EPIC proposed the following additional text for the
statement in the owner's manual for vehicles that contain ACN or EDR
connected to a communications network:
Your consent is required for the data to be disclosed to the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration--a federal agency
that gathers information about traffic accidents to improve vehicle
and road safety--or any other government or private organization,
including automotive insurance companies.
EPIC also commented that if a partial VIN is included in EDR,
the following text should be added to the owner's manual:
Only the part of your vehicle identification number (VIN) that
includes information about the make and model of your vehicle will
be collected by the event data recorder. The unique serial number
portion of the VIN will not be collected.
In addition, EPIC commented that the vehicle owner should be
instructed to have the EDR inspected if the vehicle has been involved
in an accident, flooding, or fire.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\ EPIC proposed the following additional text for the
statement in the owner's manual:
If your vehicle has been involved in a serious accident or has
been subject to flooding or fire, your event data recorder may have
been damaged. If it was involved in one of these situations, please
have your event data recorder inspected by an authorized dealer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The National Motorists Association, Advocates, AAA, and ATA all
made comments that the proposed disclosure statement is inadequate to
address an array of consumer concerns, and some suggested alternative
language. PCIAA commented that the required, specific disclosure
statement proposed in the NPRM is inadequate because the statement
could become obsolete quickly and because vehicle owners rarely refer
to or use their owner's manual. Advocates commented that the required
statement in the owner's manual is necessary but not sufficient to
educate the public about EDRs and address privacy concerns. AAA
commented that there is insufficient consumer notification about access
to
[[Page 51029]]
EDR data, stating that manufacturers should disclose in the owner's
manual whether any outside parties that have access to the data and
under what circumstances the data are shared. ATA commented that the
statement in the owner's manual should disclose that an EDR is present
and that the EDR does not collect or store personal information. The
ATA also stated that additional public information would be desirable.
After considering the public comments, we have decided to adopt a
more detailed disclosure statement, along the lines recommended by GM,
DaimlerChrysler, Ford, and Toyota. We believe that the more detailed
statement will provide consumers with a fuller understanding of the EDR
installed in their vehicles.
However, we are not adopting the recommended language in GM's
comments related to telematic systems, because such systems are not
directly the subject of this rulemaking. We note that the comments of
DaimlerChrysler, Ford, and Toyota did not include language related to
telematic systems, although the balance of their recommended disclosure
statements were virtually identical to that of GM. The capabilities of
telematic systems and the level of integration between such systems and
the EDR may also vary depending upon the given technology. For these
reasons, we have decided not to require language in the specified
disclosure statement on telematic systems. However, vehicle
manufacturers may include a discussion of applicable telematic systems
in the vehicle owner's manual, if they choose to do so.
In addition, we note that we are permitting vehicle manufacturers
to supplement the required owner's manual statement on EDRs with
additional information, if they choose to do so. Vehicle manufacturers
will have specific knowledge about their EDRs, and in some situations,
vehicle owners may benefit from such additional information.
In response to SEMA's comment that vehicle dealers should also be
required to notify consumers about EDRs and Advocates comment
requesting an additional brochure, we believe that such requirements
would be largely redundant of the information required in the owner's
manual, and hence unnecessary.
In addition, we have decided not to adopt SEMA's recommendation for
a requirement for subscription services, such as OnStar[supreg], to
disclose information about the types of data that may be transmitted
and to whom they may be transmitted, for the following reasons. First,
the regulation of such services is outside the scope of this
rulemaking, and second, consumers are generally made aware of such
services up-front, particularly where they must pay a fee for the
continuation of service. To the extent that consumers are concerned
about the data gathered or reported by these services, they are free to
pose such questions to the provider.
Regarding Mr. Funderburg's comments that EDRs should be optional
equipment that purchasers may decline, we note that making EDRs an
option could add unnecessary production costs. Moreover, there are no
benefits associated with not having an EDR. Furthermore, taking such a
position would run counter to our safety goals of securing more and
better EDR data and enabling ACN.
For the reasons discussed more fully under section IV.B.7 of this
document, we do not believe that EDRs raise meritorious privacy
concerns, because they do not collect individual identifier
information. We believe that the disclosure statement we have adopted
provides a clear picture of the types of data collected by EDRs and the
intended uses of that data.
We have decided not to adopt EPIC's recommended language warning
the consumer to have the EDR inspected after the vehicle is in a crash
or is subject to fire or flooding. We do not believe that such language
is necessary, because in such cases, the vehicle owner will normally
have the vehicle examined by both an insurance adjuster and an
automotive repair expert, professionals who will diagnose resulting
problems with all vehicle systems, including the EDR.
In response to commenters who argued that our proposed owner's
manual disclosure statement is inadequate because it is too limited, we
note that under the final rule, we are requiring an expanded disclosure
statement. We believe that our specified owner's manual disclosure
statement provides adequate notice as to the presence and function of
the EDR.
We have considered the comments arguing that our proposed owner's
manual statement could become quickly obsolete. NHTSA intends to
closely follow the development of EDR technology. If we determine that
these devices have evolved in such a way as to render our disclosure
statement inadequate, we would consider how to amend the required
language. In addition, as stated above, we are permitting vehicle
manufacturers to augment the required disclosure statement with
additional information based upon the specifics of the EDRs installed
on the vehicle. For these reasons, we believe that the EDR-related
information provided to consumers will be sufficient for most
consumers.
9. Preemption
GM, DaimlerChrysler, Ford, Toyota, AIAM, and NADA recommend that
the final rule for EDRs should explicitly state that it preempts
inconsistent State and local regulations. GM is concerned that without
a clear statement of the preemptive effect of the final rule,
manufacturers could be faced with a patchwork of State and local
requirements. AIAM expressed concern that the failure to preempt
inconsistent State and local regulations could result in manufacturers
being required to provide limited, circumscribed, or deactivated EDR
systems and inconsistent disclosure/owner's manual language on a State-
by-State basis. AIAM argued that the consistency across the nation
would aid in the public acceptance of EDRs and would help keep costs
down. NADA commented that the rule should expressly reference the
degree to which inconsistent State or local regulations are preempted.
We have considered the comments concerning the preemption of
conflicting State regulations and agree that a patchwork of State laws
is not desirable. We expect that general principles of preemption law
would operate so as to displace any conflicting State law or
regulations.
It is our view that any State laws or regulations that would
require or prohibit the types of EDRs addressed by our regulation, or
that would affect their design or operation, would create a conflict
and therefore be preempted. Specifically, this would include State EDR
technical requirements, such as ones requiring EDRs in motor vehicles
(except for State-owned vehicles), requiring that EDRs record specific
data elements, and/or requiring EDRs to meet specific technical
performance or survivability requirements.
Further, it is our view that any State laws or regulations that
imposed, for the types of EDRs addressed by our regulation, additional
disclosure requirements on vehicle manufacturers or dealers would
likewise create a conflict and therefore be preempted. We have devised
an appropriate statement for the owner's manual to make the operator
aware of the presence, function, and capabilities of the EDR.
Inconsistent or additional State disclosure requirements would
frustrate the purposes of our regulation by potentially creating
confusion or
[[Page 51030]]
information overload, thereby reducing the benefit of the required
statement. The need to meet different disclosure requirements for
different States would also increase costs, making it less likely that
manufacturers would provide EDRs.
It is our intent to provide one consistent set of requirements,
including a specified statement in the owner's manual, for vehicle
manufacturers that choose to install EDRs. We believe that this
approach will enhance the quality of EDR data by standardizing the
content, format, and accuracy of such data, thereby increasing its
comparability and overall usefulness; we further believe that the
standardized data will be of greater benefit for safety equipment
analysis and crash reconstruction. We also believe that this minimum
data set provides key elements in a standardized format that will
foster the development of ACN and other telematic systems.
We believe that State laws inconsistent with this final rule would
frustrate the final rule's purposes. For example, additional State
requirements would increase the costs of EDRs and make it less likely
that manufacturers would voluntarily provide them. Additional State
requirements could also hamper the development of future EDRs by
pushing their development in ways that are not optimal for safety.
Among other things, given limitations in data processing capabilities,
requirements for additional data elements could make EDRs less
effective in real world crashes in recording the data elements NHTSA
has determined to be most important. (As discussed in section IV.B.2 of
this notice, we believe that recording of additional data elements,
which are currently of lesser value for our stated purposes, would not
only result in significantly higher costs but would also risk
overburdening the microprocessing and memory capabilities of EDRs. This
could increase data recording times, and it could also increase the
risk of system failure, potentially resulting in the loss of all EDR
data.)
In addressing the issue of preemption, we note that the effective
date for our EDR regulation is 60 days after publication of this rule,
and that the compliance date is September 1, 2010. It is our view that
our regulation has preemptive effect between the effective date and
September 1, 2010, as well as after that latter date. In New Jersey
State Chamber of Commerce v. State of New Jersey,\49\ the Court held
that a delay in the start-up date of certain provisions of the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration's (OSHA's) Revised
Asbestos Standards did not affect the effective date of preemption, in
that case upon publication in the Federal Register (holding that
preemption arises before the regulation becomes operative, in cases
where an agency provides additional time for regulated entities to take
steps to prepare for compliance). The same principle applies here, and
we have a substantive reason for structuring the effective date and
compliance date in the manner we have done. Once the EDR regulation is
effective, a conflict with an inconsistent State law would arise
immediately and impact achievement of our ultimate objectives for
compliance in 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ 653 F.Supp. 1453, 1462 (D. N.J. 1987).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Specifically, we selected this compliance date to provide
sufficient lead time to enable manufacturers to incorporate necessary
changes as part of their routine production schedules. Thus, we expect
that, in order to meet the requirements of our regulation, between now
and September 1, 2010, vehicle manufacturers will be gradually
redesigning their EDRs, modifying vehicle systems and components that
feed into EDRs, and integrating EDRs into numerous models of vehicles.
Furthermore, a vehicle manufacturer may begin complying with the EDR
regulation once it becomes effective. Thus, any State laws or
regulations that would require or prohibit the types of EDRs addressed
by our regulation, or that would affect their design, or that would
establish a compliance date earlier than September 1, 2010, would
conflict with and frustrate the purposes of our regulation. Among other
things, such laws or regulations would interfere with the process of
manufacturers gradually redesigning their EDRs, modifying related
vehicle systems and components, and integrating EDRs into vehicles in
order to meet our requirements during that timeframe.
The agency is aware of ten States that have passed laws relating to
EDRs in the fields preempted by this final rule.\50\ Most of these
States require that the vehicle purchaser be notified that the motor
vehicle is equipped with an EDR. Three States, Arkansas, Colorado, and
North Dakota, require additional information. Of those three States,
Arkansas and North Dakota have the broadest disclosure requirements.
Arkansas requires disclosure of the presence of the EDR, the type of
EDR, and the type of data that is recorded, stored, or transmitted.\51\
North Dakota requires disclosure of the presence, capacity, and
capabilities of the EDR.\52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\50\ Arkansas, California, Colorado, Maine, New Hampshire, New
York, Nevada, North Dakota, Texas, and Virginia.
\51\ Arkansas Code, Title 27, Chapter 37, Subchapter 1, Section
103.
\52\ North Dakota Century Code, Title 51 Sales and Exchanges,
51-07-28.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We believe that the statements meeting our disclosure requirement
in the final rule would satisfy even the broadest of the existing State
disclosure requirements. Further, it does not appear that any of the
existing State requirements regarding disclosure would conflict with
the final rule.
This rule does not address certain other issues generally within
the realm of State law, such as whether the vehicle owner owns the EDR
data, how EDR data can be used/discovered in civil litigation, how EDR
data may be used in criminal proceedings, whether EDR data may be
obtained by the police without a warrant, whether EDR data may be
developed into a driver-monitoring tool, and the nature and extent that
private parties (including insurance companies, car rental companies,
and automobile manufacturers) will have or may contract for access to
EDR data. These issues are instead being addressed by State
legislatures.
10. Applicability of the EDR Rule to Multi-Stage Vehicles
In the NPRM, we stated that our proposed EDR rule would apply to
the same vehicles that are required by statute and by FMVSS No. 208 to
be equipped with frontal air bags (i.e., passenger cars, multipurpose
passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses with a GVWR of 3,855 kg or less
and an unloaded vehicle weight of 2,495 kg or less, except for walk-in
van-type trucks or vehicles designed to be sold exclusively to the U.S.
Postal Service). This covers most light vehicles, including multi-stage
vehicles. We believe applying this rule to all vehicles that are
currently subject to FMVSS No. 208 is appropriate since most EDRs are
closely associated with frontal air bags and all of these vehicles must
meet the advanced air bag requirements of FMVSS No. 208, which will be
completely phased in by manufacturers before compliance with this final
rule is required.
Several commenters suggested changing our proposal to provide an
exception for multi-stage vehicles and incomplete, intermediate, and
final stage manufacturers. GM, DaimlerChrysler, Ford, and Toyota
expressed support for either excluding incomplete, intermediate, and
final
[[Page 51031]]
stage manufacturers from the requirements of the rule by specifically
excluding these manufacturers in the regulatory text or by requiring
those manufacturers to certify compliance one year after the last
applicable date for manufacturer certification of compliance provided
under the final rule. GM's point is that the proposed EDR rule would
result in a significant burden on incomplete, intermediate, and final
stage manufacturers. GM argues that the integration of EDR functions
into a vehicle is a complex task requiring advanced communications and
data processing technologies that may be beyond the capabilities of
many small businesses.
ATA asserted NHTSA has not involved final stage vehicle
manufacturers or accessory installers in an appropriate dialog. ATA
encouraged NHTSA to conclude that there is no possibility that EDR
performance could be affected during any type of completion or
conversion or accessory installation. On the issue of the effect of the
EDR requirements on altered vehicles, NADA commented that NHTSA should
``consider the complexities that may be involved for light-duty
vehicles manufactured in two or more stages or which are altered prior
to first sale.''
We have considered the comments that we provide an exception or
otherwise delay the effective date of this rulemaking for incomplete,
intermediate, and final stage manufacturers (i.e., multi-stage
vehicles). Since the NPRM was published, NHTSA has issued a final rule
pertaining to certification requirements for vehicles built in two or
more stages and altered vehicles (see 70 FR 7414 (February 14, 2005)).
The amendments made in that final rule become effective September 1,
2006. In relevant part, the multi-stage certification final rule
amended 49 CFR 571.8, Effective Date, and it added a new subparagraph
(b) providing as follows:
(b) Vehicles built in two or more stages vehicles and altered
vehicles. Unless Congress directs or the agency expressly determines
that this paragraph does not apply, the date for manufacturer
certification of compliance with any standard, or amendment to a
standard, that is issued on or after September 1, 2006 is, insofar
as its application to intermediate and final-stage manufacturers and
alterers is concerned, one year after the last applicable date for
manufacturer certification of compliance. Nothing in this provision
shall be construed as prohibiting earlier compliance with the
standard or amendment or as precluding NHTSA from extending a
compliance effective date for intermediate and final-stage
manufacturers and alterers by more than one year.
In light of the agency's policy on multi-stage manufacturer
certification, as expressed in the February 14, 2005 final rule, we
have decided to apply that principle to the compliance date for final-
stage manufacturers and alterers. Thus, final-stage manufacturers and
alterers must comply with this rule for vehicles manufactured on or
after September 1, 2011. However, final-stage manufacturers and
alterers may voluntarily certify compliance with the standard prior to
this date.
11. Applicability of the EDR Rule to Heavy Vehicles and Buses
In addition to multi-stage vehicles, Public Citizen and Advocates
commented that NHTSA should extend the rule's applicability to include
other vehicles, such as heavier trucks and 15-passenger vans. Public
Citizen commented that all new vehicles, including large trucks, should
be required to be equipped with EDRs, and the organization encouraged
NHTSA to undertake a separate rulemaking to require EDRs in large
trucks. Public Citizen stated that the benefit realized by EDRs is
directly proportional to the number of vehicles equipped with these
devices and that full fleet penetration is critical to the accuracy and
utility of EDR data. Public Citizen further commented that an EDR
requirement for large trucks could help improve industry practices and
driver behavior. Similarly, Advocates commented that the rule should
include 15 passenger vans and heavier light trucks because those
vehicles have relatively high rollover rates, high risk of injury to
multiple occupants, and are exempt from other safety regulations (e.g.,
side impact and roof crush resistance).
While EDR requirements for heavier vehicles are outside the scope
of this rulemaking, we note that many 15-passenger vans are within the
applicable weight range for this final rule, and thus, are required to
comply with the EDR regulation. Further, we note that some original
equipment manufacturers, such as GM, are installing EDRs in their
medium trucks equipped with air bags.
As noted in the NPRM, we are not addressing in this document what
future role the agency may take related to the continued development
and installation of EDRs in heavy vehicles. We will consider that topic
separately, after consultation with the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration. As noted previously, FMCSA is currently engaged in
rulemaking that would facilitate the use of Electronic On-Board
Recorders for recording and documenting the hours of service of
commercial drivers.
We believe that deferring consideration of requirements for EDRs
installed on heavy trucks is appropriate for the following reasons.
First, it would provide the agency with time to build experience in
terms of standardization of EDR data in light vehicles. This experience
could then be applied to our consideration of heavy trucks.
Second, because the relevant data to be gathered by EDRs installed
in heavy trucks are not identical to that of light vehicles, we believe
any such requirements should come in a separate regulation.
Third, because EDRs in light vehicles rely heavily upon sensors and
diagnostic equipment associated with the vehicle's air bag system, the
agency must carefully assess the costs, benefits, and lead time
necessary for EDR requirements for heavy trucks, which may not have
systems with all the necessary hardware. We understand that heavy truck
manufacturers, suppliers, and others are engaged in EDR-related efforts
with SAE, which will result in recommended practices for these devices.
NHTSA is closely monitoring these efforts by the SAE working group.
NHTSA is also closely following activities in other governmental
agencies, including FMCSA and NTSB.
Finally, separate consideration of EDR requirements for heavy
trucks will expedite promulgation of this final rule for EDRs in light
vehicles, thereby encouraging further positive developments based upon
standardized EDR data.
12. Automatic Crash Notification and E-911
The NPRM stated that the purpose of this rulemaking is to help
ensure that EDRs record, in a readily usable manner, data necessary for
effective crash investigations, analysis of safety equipment
performance, and automatic crash notification systems. It is NHTSA's
position that this data will help provide a better understanding of the
circumstances in which crashes and injuries occur and will lead to the
designing of safer vehicles.
Including ACN as a stated purpose of the EDR rule drew comments.
Commenters recommended additional clarifying language or deleting
relevant portions of the proposed regulatory text so that the rule
cannot be construed as a limitation on manufacturers' ability to offer
telematics features, such as ACN. GM, Ford, and Toyota recommended that
the final rule expressly state that it does not limit manufacturers'
ability to
[[Page 51032]]
offer ACN and other telematics features. Likewise, PCIAA commented the
rule should not ``preclude EDRs and similar vehicle technology (i.e.,
intelligent vehicle systems-telematics) from being fully leveraged by
the public and private sectors.''
GM argued that because ACN is not being proposed in this
rulemaking, the language referencing ACN should be dropped from the
regulatory text. GM further argued that the proposed EDR rule makes no
provision for the software, hardware, and infrastructure required to
make use of ACN-related data. DaimlerChrysler made a similar comment,
adding that ACN infrastructure was last estimated to cover only 25% of
the United States, principally in urban areas. DaimlerChrysler stated
that benefits of ACN, other than those related to better crash data,
are speculative and out-of-scope.
We acknowledge that this final rule does not regulate or require
ACN systems. Nonetheless, we are retaining ACN as a stated reason to
require EDR data standardization because we believe that the final rule
would have ancillary benefits, such as facilitating ACN development.
However, our other stated purposes fully justify the rule. We emphasize
that this final rule does not limit the ability of manufacturers to
offer ACN or other telematics devices.
To reiterate our earlier reasoning, we note that the NPRM provides
a detailed explanation of the relationship between EDRs and ACN
systems. In addition, the ENHANCE 9-1-1 Act of 2004 requires the
Department of Transportation to help coordinate and to speed the
deployment of Wireless Enhanced 9-1-1. ACN has the potential for
interfacing with nation-wide Wireless Enhanced 9-1-1 deployment by
providing immediate and accurate crash location information to Public
Safety Answering Points. This will expedite the dispatch of emergency
services to the crash scene, help ensure that EMS personnel can locate
the crash, and speed the provision of lifesaving emergency medical
services to traffic crash victims. The prompt provision of emergency
medical care to traffic crash victims will reduce morbidity and
mortality.
We believe ACN systems have great potential for reducing deaths and
injuries caused by motor vehicle accidents. This potential arises from
the ability of the EDR and ACN, working in tandem, to determine (prior
to responding to the accident scene) the likely nature and severity of
the injuries, the proper allocation of resources to respond to those
injuries, and the location of the crash. We fully expect ACN systems to
evolve, and our rulemaking today, which standardizes EDR data, will
play a role in realizing the safety benefits of ACN.
13. Definitions
a. ``Trigger Threshold''
``Trigger threshold'' indicates the point at which a recordable
event is recognized by the EDR as suitable for further analysis. Our
proposal defined ``trigger threshold'' as ``a change in vehicle
velocity, in the longitudinal direction for vehicles with only
longitudinal acceleration measurements or in the horizontal plane for
vehicles with both longitudinal and lateral measurements, that equals
or exceeds 0.8 km/h within a 20 ms interval.'' In proposing a value for
the EDR trigger threshold, we turned to SAE J1698 for guidance.
GM commented that, as proposed, the trigger threshold for EDR
recording was set too low and would result in an excessive number of
recordings and re-recordings. GM argued that the defined threshold
would create a risk of memory degradation in the electronic control
module over the life of the vehicle. Accordingly, GM, along with
DaimlerChrysler, Ford, and Toyota, recommended revising the definition
of ``trigger threshold'' to read: ``equals or exceeds 5 mph (8 km/h)
within a 0.15 second interval.'' GM stated that its recommended value
is consistent with the FMVSS bumper standard threshold.
Similarly, Hyundai, Kia, and Delphi stated that the trigger
threshold specified in the NPRM is set too low and would result in data
being rewritten many times as a result of potholes and curb hits.
According to the commenters, this frequent overwriting of the EDR data
could result in computer memory failure, thereby leaving the EDR
unavailable in the event of an actual crash. Delphi recommended that
the trigger threshold ``corresponds to an average acceleration in
excess of 1.5 G with a total velocity change of at least 5 km/hr.''
As an alternative to the proposed language, TRW Automotive
suggested that the trigger threshold should be determined by the air
bag system, which would notify the other systems to begin recording.
TRW argued that, currently, each individual system records its own data
so minimal changes would be needed to implement the rule. TRW's
rationale is that implementation of the rule would be less expensive
and less complex if the rule permitted each system to record its own
data.
TRW Automotive also commented that there should be ``an acceptable
tolerance of plus or minus ``one data sample period'' for the data
points corresponding to ``trigger threshold'' detection, and a sampling
rate tolerance of plus or minus three percent for data before and after
the point of ``trigger threshold'' detection.''
Advocates stated that it had no opinion on the exact specification
for the trigger threshold but expressed concern about setting the
trigger at a level where recording would occur only in the event of a
crash. Advocates suggested that NHTSA should consider the collection of
near-miss data in a future EDR rulemaking. Advocates also questioned
whether an electrical or engine fire would be a triggering event and
suggested that NHTSA should revise the rule to require the EDR to be
sensitive to fire-based events.
After considering these comments, we have decided to modify the
trigger threshold value to 8 km/h within a 150 ms interval, as
requested by the commenters, such that the final rule's definition of
``trigger threshold'' reads: ``a change in velocity, in the
longitudinal direction, that equals or exceeds 8 km/h within a 150 ms
interval. For vehicles that record ``delta-V, lateral,'' trigger
threshold means a change in vehicle velocity, in either the
longitudinal or lateral direction that equals or exceeds 8 km/h within
a 150 ms interval.'' We believe that this change is appropriate for the
following reasons.
While we agree that the threshold proposed in the NPRM routinely
could be exceeded by strong bumper-to-bumper contact in a parking lot
or minor impact with a road obstacle, we only required the data to be
recorded if the cumulative delta-V of the current event/crash exceeded
the delta-V of the previously-recorded data. We do not agree that the
non-volatile memory would have been over-burdened, because the delta-V
of the event in non-volatile memory would have rapidly reached a
sufficient magnitude to disregard minor impacts, such as bumper-to-
bumper events. We believe that the revised criterion effectively
addresses the concerns raised by the commenters and reduces the
complications of decisionmaking regarding EDR data recording, while
maintaining the ability to obtain data from most significant crashes
(i.e., those that are non-trivial).
We have decided not to adopt TRW's recommendation to tie the
trigger threshold to air bag deployment. We are interested in
collecting data on high delta-V crashes that do not deploy the air bag
systems. While air bag systems may be operating properly in these
[[Page 51033]]
cases, we are nonetheless interested in these situations, and EDR data
captured in these situations would be helpful for safety equipment
analysis. We are also interested in collecting data in non-air bag
deployment crashes. Finally, one of our stated reasons for this
rulemaking is to standardize EDRs. We believe that using a set delta-V
will better facilitate this purpose, whereas using air bag triggers
could result in different thresholds, depending on manufacturer
deployment strategies and vehicle platforms. For these reasons, we have
decided not to narrow our definition of ``trigger threshold'' by tying
it to air bag deployment.
Regarding Advocates'' comments recommending capture of near-miss
data, we have decided that this rulemaking should target crash event
data. While the agency believes valuable information for crash
avoidance can be obtained from studying near-miss data, we do not
believe that current EDRs are best suited for this function. Typically,
near-miss data are not associated with a strong physical occurrence,
hence increasing the difficulty of defining a trigger threshold to key
recording. If the trigger threshold were set very low, it would cause
the generation of a large volume of files that would need to be
captured and recorded, or alternatively, it would force EDRs to
continuously record information. Either of these data logging processes
would make EDRs much more expensive. At this time, the agency believes
these issues can be addressed best through our research programs, such
as the recently completed 100-car study, in which naturalistic driving
characteristics were captured.\53\ Furthermore, near-miss situations
are not expected to generate data applicable to the data elements
selected as non-trivial events in this final rule (e.g., no delta-V or
safety restraint data).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\53\ Naturalistic Driving Study; Virginia Tech Transportation
Institute (VTTI); see http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/departments/nrd-13/driver-distraction/PDF/100CarMain.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As with near-miss data, NHTSA does not believe that a trigger
related to fire would be a cost-effective or practicable approach. Non-
crash fires are typically associated with fuel leaks, and as with the
near-miss data, current event'driven EDRs would not capture much data,
even if the EDR were triggered.
b. ``Event''
In addition to ``trigger threshold,'' the definition of ``event''
is important to understanding what constitutes a recordable event for
an EDR. In the NPRM, we defined ``event'' as ``a crash or other
physical occurrence that causes the trigger threshold to be met or
exceeded after the end of the 500 ms period for recording data
regarding the immediately previous event.''
GM urged modification of the NPRM's definition of ``event,''
arguing that the proposed sampling rates and durations are excessive.
In order to address these concerns, GM provided a revised definition of
``event'' and suggested a new definition of ``crash event,'' which also
sought to clarify the distinction between an event that triggers data
capture in volatile memory and an event that triggers the recording of
data in non-volatile memory. DaimlerChrysler, Ford and Toyota offered
nearly identical comments to those of GM, except that in their
definition of ``crash event,'' the longitudinal or lateral trigger
threshold was 5 mph delta-V in 150 ms, as opposed to 5 mph delta-V in
250 ms for GM.
Nissan suggested that the rule should permit two alternatives for
determining the beginning of an event, as provided in SAE J1698. SAE
J1698 and SAE J1698-1 include two methods of establishing time zero.
One method calculates time zero as the occurrence of a delta-V of over
0.8 km/h (0.5 mph) in 20 ms. The other method of calculating delta-V is
to define time zero as the point at which the EDR algorithm is
activated, also known as ``wake-up.'' The first method was the basis
for our proposal in this area. GM, Ford, DaimlerChrysler, and Toyota
commented that we should first define an ``event'' and then define
``time zero'' as the beginning of the event, recommending a definition
of ``event'' as a delta-V of over 8 km/h (5 mph) or more within 150 ms,
instead delta-V of over 0.8 km/h (0.5 mph) in 20 ms.
After considering the comments we received on this definition, we
have slightly modified the definition of ``event'' in the final rule to
read as: ``a crash or other physical occurrence that causes the trigger
threshold to be met or exceeded.'' We believe this change is consistent
with vehicle manufacturers' comments. Under the new trigger threshold
definition, an event is a physical occurrence that produces sufficient
delta-V to exceed the trigger threshold. Those occurrences that do not
meet the threshold are not classified as ``events.''
As discussed below, we have modified the way in which the start of
an event and end of an event are determined, consistent with SAE J1698.
c. ``Event Data Recorder''
The NPRM defined ``event data recorder'' as ``a device or function
in a vehicle that records any vehicle or occupant-based data just prior
to or during a crash, such that the data can be retrieved after the
crash. For purposes of this definition, vehicle or occupant-based data
include any of the data elements listed in Table I of this part.''
GM, Ford and Toyota recommended revising the NPRM's definition of
``event data recorder'' in order to narrow the definition and make it
more precise.\54\ GM argued that its recommended definition of ``event
recorder'' would prevent confusion and possible misinterpretation.
DaimlerChrysler recommended a similar definition for ``event data
recorder,'' except that DaimlerChrysler's comments omitted the specific
time references indicated by GM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\54\ GM offered the following definition of ``event data
recorder'':
Event data recorder (EDR) means a device or function in a
vehicle that captures the data elements identified in Table I of
this standard for up to 5 seconds before time zero and up to 250 ms
after time zero, and that records the data when it has been
determined that a crash event has occurred so that it can be
retrieved after the crash.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Injury Sciences suggested expanding the definition of EDR to
include vehicles that record and store any form of speed or collision
information, without regard to the storage location or purpose.
According to Injury Sciences, this would prevent manufacturers from
circumventing the rule by not storing or using the data in their air
bag modules.
Gelco commented that the definition of ``event data recorder'' in
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of the NPRM is narrower than the
definition in Sec. 563.5 of the proposed regulatory text. Gelco argued
that the definition in Sec. 563.5 would include devices that are
designed to capture data at lower resolution on an ongoing basis (as
distinguished from devices that capture detailed data at the time of a
crash event.) Gelco stated that such devices have valid purposes for
both owners and users of vehicles, and that encompassing these devices
within the definition of EDR would unnecessarily restrain their
development. Gelco recommended narrowing the scope of the rule by
adopting a definition for ``event data recorder'' that differentiates
between devices that capture data on an ongoing basis and EDRs.\55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\55\ Gelco recommended the following definition of event data
recorder, in order to clarify the scope of existing recorders
covered by the rule:
Event data recorder (EDR) means a device or function installed
in a vehicle as part of its original equipment that records any
vehicle or occupant-based data just prior to or during a crash, such
that the data can be retrieved after the crash. For purposes of this
definition, vehicle or occupant-based data include any of the data
elements listed in Table I of this part. For purposes of this
definition, devices or functions which may record one or more of the
data elements listed in Table I of this part just prior to or during
a crash but which are not designed for the purpose of collecting and
storing motor vehicle crash event data or to record vehicle or
occupant-based data at the recording intervals/times listed in Table
I of this part shall not be event data recorders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 51034]]
AAM stated that the definition of ``event data recorder'' is too
broad in that it includes components that are not designed primarily
for recording crash data. For example, some current recording systems
only record restraint system deployment decisions and timing data. As a
result, AAM argued that the rule acts as a mandate forcing
manufacturers to record a great deal more data than their systems are
currently designed to record. On the same issue, the Alliance offered
to help NHTSA draft a specification that more clearly delineates the
devices that they believe should fall within the ambit of the final
rule.
After carefully consideration of the comments, we have decided to
revise the definition of ``event data recorder'' in order to avoid
possible misinterpretation. As proposed in the NPRM, the definition
would have covered all devices that record static freeze-frame air bag
data elements (e.g., ``frontal air bag warning lamp-on/off''), which
commenters argued would have inadvertently resulted in a mandatory
rule. Therefore, we have revised the definition to exclude static
freeze-frame data elements, and by doing so, we avoid a mandatory rule.
However, our revised definition retains critical data elements
necessary for restraint performance evaluation, crash reconstruction,
and better delta-V estimation.
The final rule defines ``event data recorder'' as ``a device or
function in a vehicle that records the vehicle's dynamic, time-series
data during the time period just prior to a crash event (e.g., vehicle
speed vs. time) or during a crash event (e.g., delta-V vs. time),
intended for retrieval after the crash event. For the purposes of this
definition, the event data do not include audio and video data.''
14. Utilization of SAE and IEEE Standards
Under Section 563.4, the NPRM proposed to incorporate by reference
SAE Recommended Practice J211-1, March 1995, ``Instrumentation for
Impact Test--Part 1--Electronic Instrumentation'' (SAE J211-1). GM
commented that the proposed section which would have incorporated SAE
J211-1 should be deleted, arguing that high-speed acceleration data is
not needed for accident reconstruction purposes (delta-V is sufficient)
and that manufacturers should have the flexibility to work with their
suppliers to match data acquisition hardware and software for their
systems. On the other hand, IEEE-VTS commented that NHTSA should
include in Section 563.4 several provisions of its consensus Motor
Vehicle Electronic Data Recorder (MVEDR) standard on a broad range of
topics.\56\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\56\ IEEE-VTS requested incorporation of the following sections
of their consensus MVEDR, IEEE 1616 standards: Data Privacy and
Security Recommendations (Clause 1.3), Definitions (Clause 3.1),
International Use of MVEDR Data (Clause 4.2), Emergency Response
Community (i.e. Data Accessibility & Extraction) (Clause 4.3.4),
Electronic Equipment Operating Environment (Clause 4.6.1), Battery/
Reserve Power (Clause 4.6.2), Crashworthiness (Clause 4.7), Vehicle
Crash Modes (Clause 5.1), Minimum Outputs (Clause 6.1), Ability to
Access Nonvolatile Memory (Clause 6.6.), Use of Proprietary
Connectors (Clause 6.8), MVEDR Telltake (Clause 6.12), Data Capture
(Clause 7.7), MVEDR Data Dictionary (Clause 8), and Recommended Data
Elements for Light Vehicles Under 4,500 kg (Clause 8.2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We have considered GM's comment that Section 563.4 should be
deleted, which is premised upon replacement of the proposed
acceleration data element with a delta-V data element. As indicated
above, manufacturers who prefer to record acceleration may continue to
do so under this final rule. However, for those manufacturers that
prefer to record acceleration data instead of delta-V, the acceleration
data must be filtered and converted to delta-V either during the
recording period or in the data downloading process. Accordingly, the
incorporation by reference provision, as it appeared in the NPRM,
remains relevant, and we see no reason to remove it. We note that the
incorporated SAE standard is not relevant to manufacturers that decide
to record delta-V instead of acceleration.
We have also considered IEEE-VTS's request to incorporate its IEEE
1616 standard. We note that although incorporation by reference is a
common practice in our rulemaking, we only utilize it when we believe
the standards are appropriate and the standards are too complex and
onerous to be copied into the regulation. In the present case, we
believe that the provisions of the IEEE standard that do not already
appear in our proposed EDR rulemaking are not necessary for data
standardization. For many of the other IEEE provisions that do appear
in the EDR regulatory text, we do not believe that these standards are
too complex and onerous to be copied into the regulation. We believe
that many of the definitions that we have provided in the regulatory
text are easy to understand and follow. In fact, we believe that it
would be easier for the reader to understand if all the items were
articulated in the regulation itself, rather than by incorporation.
Accordingly, we have we have decided not to incorporate by reference
the IEEE 1616 standard, as recommended by IEEE-VTS.
15. Costs
The NPRM estimated that the added cost to manufacturers for
implementing the requirements of the EDR proposal would be $0.50 per
vehicle. Several commenters (GM, DaimlerChrysler, Ford, Toyota, Nissan,
Subaru, ATA, and AIAM) argued that the NPRM's cost estimate is
understated. These commenters argued that implementation of the
proposal would result in significantly higher costs related to
microprocessing and memory upgrades, computer reprogramming, the
proposed range, accuracy, and precision requirements, the dynamic
testing requirements, and air bag sensor upgrades. Several commenters
provided suggestions on ways to reduce costs, while others discussed
the effect of costs on installation of EDRs.
GM commented that additional memory and processing capacity
required to meet the requirements outlined in the NPRM would greatly
increase the cost of complying with the proposed rule. According to GM,
memory storage capacity would need to be expanded beyond that provided
for current EDRs, and memory cannot be added incrementally, as implied
in NHTSA's cost estimates (i.e., computer memory is normally available
in blocks, so the next step up from 64K may be 128K). GM further stated
that microprocessors available to handle larger amounts of memory are
usually packaged with other system capabilities (e.g., increased input/
output/pins) that would further increase system costs. According to GM,
this is true for both volatile and non-volatile memory.
We infer from GM's comments that it believes that, if adopted, our
proposal would entail unavoidable increases in processor costs.
Specifically, unless the processor has sufficient memory capacity, the
ability of the restraint system modules to perform their primary task
(i.e., deploying the air bags in a timely and appropriate manner) could
be compromised. GM stated that two microprocessors may be necessary to
perform these two functions.
DaimlerChrysler, Ford, and Toyota provided nearly identical
comments to those of GM on the cost issues associated with memory
capacity and microprocessing. However, they
[[Page 51035]]
estimated that the NPRM's proposed requirements would necessitate EDR
storage capacity 5-10 times greater than that found in current EDRs and
that the overall cost per vehicle would be 2-3 orders of magnitude
greater than the NPRM's current estimate (i.e., $50-$500).
DaimlerChrysler and Toyota also argued that costs for RAM memory are
typically more expensive than ROM memory.
DaimlerChrysler, Ford, and Toyota commented that the Preliminary
Regulatory Evaluation's projection of $10,000 per manufacturer for
software algorithm reprogramming costs is an underestimate, although no
alternative figure was provided. These manufacturers asserted that such
efforts would require engineering-level specification development,
algorithm development, and algorithm validation for each vehicle
development program.
GM and AIAM commented that the proposed range, accuracy, and
precision requirements in Table III of the NPRM underestimate certain
hardware costs. For example, GM stated that it currently uses 50 G accelerometers with an 8% accuracy. According to GM,
doubling the range to 100 G and increasing the accuracy of
those accelerometers would add significant costs, which are not
reflected in the NPRM's cost estimates. GM added that in some cases,
the new requirements are beyond the state-of-the-art and may not be
feasible. AIAM commented that the NPRM specifies range, accuracy and
precision standards in excess of current industry practice. According
to these commenters, significant increases in cost would be required to
modify systems to meet these proposed requirements.
Another cost issue, raised by GM, Ford, and Toyota, related to the
proposed dynamic testing requirements for EDRs, which the commenters
asserted would greatly increase testing costs. For example, GM argued
that the NPRM would require storage of crashed vehicles for 30 days
following a test to ensure retrievability of data. GM commented that
such a requirement is impractical and unnecessary. Ford and Toyota
challenged the Preliminary Regulatory Evaluation's assumption that the
NPRM's proposed functionality and survivability requirements would not
add any costs because existing EDRs are already capable of meeting the
proposed standard. Ford stated that NHTSA has not fully accounted for
the crash test performance and survivability provisions, so additional
costs would be expected.
As discussed earlier, GM, DaimlerChrysler, and Ford all argued that
the proposal would significantly increase testing costs, because they
perceived that the testing would need to be conducted with running
vehicles and activated systems. According to GM, the NPRM does not
account for a significant additional cost for reserve or backup
batteries, which it argued would be necessary to comply with the
proposed requirement that EDR data be retrievable without external
power for up to 30 days.
To remedy the above cost issues, GM recommended reducing the number
of data elements to only those necessary to obtain safety-related data
suitable for crash reconstruction purposes, which would presumably
allow current EDRs to handle these tasks with minimal modifications and
cost increases.
Nissan argued that the broad definition of an ``event data
recorder,'' as proposed, encompasses many current air bag systems that
do not record the types of information included in Table I. According
to Nissan's calculations, the NPRM underestimates the cost of
implementation by a factor of 10. Nissan argued that its air bag
systems would need major architectural changes to meet the proposed
requirements. Subaru made a similar comment, arguing that the NPRM
underestimates the costs of implementation because Subaru might be
forced to develop an entirely new air bag electronic control unit. AIAM
commented that some EDR systems that currently only record air bag
information may need a complete redesign.
DaimlerChrysler, Ford and Toyota stated that sensors that could
meet the requirements of the NPRM are currently considered ``laboratory
grade,'' which raises issues related both to cost and availability.
Delphi and Mr. Funderburg expressed concern that the cost of
implementation would deter manufacturers from installing EDRs or take
away resources from NHTSA's other projects. Delphi commented that the
cost of implementation might vary significantly depending on the
existing system architecture and that because of potentially high
costs, many manufacturers may choose to freeze their level of EDR fleet
penetration or even remove EDRs from certain models. Commenters argued
that manufacturers of vehicles with components that are not
sufficiently interconnected either would remove (or not implement) EDRs
or would be required to make significant changes to the existing
electrical architecture. Mr. Funderburg expressed concern regarding the
costs of data analysis and the potential for diverting NHTSA's
resources away from more important projects.
AAA recommended adoption of a smaller data set to help reduce the
costs of implementation. In contrast, Public Citizen asserted that
requiring installation of EDRs with an appropriately large number of
data elements would be more cost-effective for both manufacturers and
consumers. Public Citizen stated that mandated safety features costs
consumers as little as a quarter of the cost of such features in the
absence of an agency requirement. However, Public Citizen did not
provide any data to substantiate this point.
We have considered the comments on costs, and we have addressed the
concerns of the commenters in the Final Regulatory Evaluation (FRE),
which may be found under the same docket number as this final rule.
However, the following summarizes the conclusions presented in the FEA.
The total cost for the estimated 9.8 million vehicles that already
have an EDR function to comply with the regulation will range up to
$1.7 million. If manufacturers were to provide EDRs in all 15.5 million
light vehicles, the estimated total cost will range up to $10.9
million. These potential costs include technology costs, administrative
costs, and compliance costs (although the latter two sets of costs are
expected to be negligible).
16. Other Issues
a. Scope and Purpose
The NPRM's regulatory text defined the purpose and scope of this
rulemaking as specifying uniform, national requirements for vehicles
equipped with EDRs. Proposed section 563.1 also required vehicle
manufacturers to make sufficient information publicly available to
enable crash investigators and researchers to retrieve data from EDRs.
Two vehicle manufacturers commented on the proposed scope
provision. GM commented that the NPRM's statement of scope is overly
broad and somewhat ambiguous. GM argued that the current text of Sec.
563.1 should be revised to clarify the intended scope of the
regulation, and GM further argued that NHTSA should mandate
installation of EDRs. Toyota also commented that the scope of the rule
is overly broad and ambiguous and recommended language nearly identical
to GM's, but without advocating a mandatory EDR requirement.
PCIAA commented that the proposed rule focuses too much on
restraint systems and not enough on systems to help the driver avoid
collisions.
We have carefully considered the comments pertaining to the scope
[[Page 51036]]
provision. We disagree with the commenters who stated that our scope
provision is overbroad and ambiguous. To reiterate our earlier
explanation, we intend to collect EDR data in order to gather
information related to crash reconstruction, to the analysis of safety
equipment performance, and which may be useful for ACN. We believe that
the regulatory text, when read in its totality (including sections on
scope, purpose, and definitions), provides the public with a clear
understanding of the objectives of our final rule.
We also disagree with commenters' recommendations to change the
scope of the final rule to adopt a mandatory EDR requirement. As noted
above, we did not propose a mandatory requirement for vehicle
manufacturers to install EDRs, and for the reasons previously
discussed, we have decided not to adopt such an approach at this time.
We will continue to monitor EDR installation, and may reconsider this
issue in the future if circumstances warrant. We agree that it is
desirable for EDRs to gain wider usage and acceptance.
We have considered PCIAA's comment that the rulemaking should
acknowledge other uses of EDR data (other than those specified in the
NPRM) so that data elements offer sufficient flexibility and the
correct incentives to avoid discouraging innovations that go beyond the
goals of research and vehicle safety. However, we do not believe that
this rule will deter EDR innovations beyond NHTSA's stated purposes,
nor inhibit the ability to use EDRs for other purposes. Furthermore, we
do not believe it is appropriate to incorporate into this rule other
uses of EDR data that we currently have no reason to standardize, and
doing so would require the agency to significantly alter the scope and
purpose of this rule.
We have, however, revised the regulatory text of the scope
provision to make it consistent with the revisions made to the data
retrieval section. As stated above, in the final rule we have revised
the portion of our proposal that would have required manufacturers make
publicly available through the NHTSA docket such non-proprietary
information that would permit companies that manufacture diagnostic
tools to develop and build a device capable of accessing, retrieving,
interpreting, and converting data stored in the EDR. Consistent with
our new approach arising out of public comments, the scope provision
now indicates that manufacturers are required under this final rule to
make such information commercially available.
DaimlerChrysler recommended adding a time element to the
``purpose'' section of the regulatory text, stating that EDR recording
will include ``five seconds of specified pre-crash data elements and
250 milliseconds of specified crash data elements * * *.'' We have
considered DaimlerChrysler's recommendation; however, we generally do
not provide such specific language in the purpose section. Instead, we
believe that such time element is sufficiently and clearly addressed in
the regulatory text under the ``data capture'' section.
b. Technical Changes to Definitions and New Definitions
In response to recommendations provided in the comments, we have
decided to modify several definitions in the regulatory text. These
modifications to the regulatory text provide clarification and address
technical or minor issues.
``Capture''
The NPRM defined ``capture'' as ``the process of saving recorded
data.'' GM, DaimlerChrysler, and Ford commented that this definition
should be clarified. According to GM, the industry defines ``capture''
as the process of buffering data in a temporary, volatile storage
medium where it is continuously updated. GM stated that data captured
in volatile memory is unstable, insofar as it is continuously
overwritten with new data as long as power is supplied to the module
and is lost the moment power is discontinued. We have revised the
definition of ``capture'' in light of these comments. Accordingly, the
final rule defines ``capture'' as ``the process of buffering EDR data
in a temporary, volatile storage medium where it is continuously
updated at regular time intervals.'' We believe that, as modified, the
definition of ``capture'' better reflects the industry's understanding
and uses of that term.
``Record''
The NPRM defined ``record'' as ``the process of storing data into
volatile memory for later use.'' GM, DaimlerChrysler, Ford, and Toyota
recommended changing the definition of ``record'' to ``the process of
saving captured EDR data into a non-volatile memory storage device for
subsequent retrieval.'' GM stated that the industry generally uses the
term ``record'' to mean saving captured data into a non-volatile memory
storage device that is permanent and stable, even if power is lost to
the storage module. We agree with these comments and have modified the
definition of the term ``record'' accordingly. The definition of
``record'' now reads: ``the process of saving captured EDR data into a
non-volatile device for subsequent retrieval.''
``Engine Throttle, Percent Full'' and ``Service Brake, On and Off''
The NPRM defined ``engine throttle, percent full'' as ``for
vehicles powered by internal combustion engines, the percent of the
engine throttle opening compared to the full open position of the
engine throttle opening, and for vehicles not powered by internal
combustion engines, the percent of vehicle accelerator depression
compared to the fully depressed position.'' The NPRM defined ``service
brake, on, off'' as ``the vehicle's service brake is being applied or
not being applied.''
GM, DaimlerChrysler, Ford, Toyota, and AIAM recommended revising
the definition of ``engine throttle, percent full'' to clarify that it
is the driver input that is recorded, rather than the electrical or
mechanical output that resulted. The commenters recommended the same
type of change for the definition of ``service brake, on, off.'' GM's
rationale is that, while the input and output signals will generally
correspond, the former is more relevant for safety-related crash
analyses. AIAM commented that the ``engine throttle, percent full''
data element should be redefined to allow the recording of the throttle
pedal input angle as an alternative means of capturing driver behavior.
After consideration of these comments, we have determined that both
definitions should be clarified, as suggested, to reflect that it is
the driver input that is to be recorded. As stated above in our
discussion regarding the ``engine RPM'' data element, we believe that
driver input is more useful for studying crash reconstruction.
Therefore, the definition of ``engine throttle, percent full'' has been
clarified and now reads: ``the driver requested acceleration as
measured by the throttle position sensor on the accelerator pedal
compared to the fully depressed position.''
In the final rule, we have also applied this rationale to the
definition of ``service brake, on/off'' as suggested by the public
comments, clarifying that it is the driver input that is recorded. The
new definition reads, ``the status of the device that is installed in,
or connected to, the brake pedal system to detect whether the pedal was
pressed. The device can include the brake pedal switch or other driver-
operated service brake control.'' We believe that this definition is
more suitable for the stated purposes of this rulemaking.
[[Page 51037]]
``Frontal Air Bag''
The NPRM defined ``frontal air bag'' as ``the primary inflatable
occupant restraint device that is designed to deploy in a frontal crash
to protect the front seat occupants.'' GM, DaimlerChrysler, Ford, and
Toyota recommended revising the NPRM's definition of ``frontal air
bag'' to make it more closely align to the language of FMVSS No.
208.\57\ We agree with the commenters and have made this modification
in the final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\57\ Specifically, GM recommended the following definition:
Frontal air bag means any inflatable restraint system that
requires no action by vehicle occupants and is used to meet the
applicable frontal crash protection requirements of S5.1.2(b) of
FMVSS No. 208.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
``Ignition Cycle, Crash'' and ``Ignition Cycle, Download''
In defining the terms ``ignition cycle, crash'' and ``ignition
cycle, download,'' the NPRM used the phrase ``ignition key
applications.'' GM, DaimlerChrysler, Ford, and Toyota recommended
revising these definitions to reflect that in the future, technological
changes may obviate the need for a conventional ignition key.
Based upon these comments, we have modified the relevant
definitions in the final rule as follows: ``ignition cycle, crash''
means ``the number of power cycles applied to the recording device up
to and including the time when the crash event occurred since the first
use of the EDR.'' ``Ignition cycle, download'' means ``the number of
power cycles applied to the recording device at the time when the data
was downloaded since the first use of the EDR.''
``Normal Acceleration''
The NPRM defined ``normal acceleration'' as ``the component of the
vector acceleration of a point in the vehicle in the z-direction. The
normal acceleration is positive in a downward direction.'' Delphi
recommended that NHTSA provide greater specificity in the definition of
0 G normal acceleration, because the term 0 G is used inconsistently
within the industry (e.g., 0 G is sometimes normalized for the ``1 G
bias due to gravity). We agree with Delphi's comments and have revised
the definition. Since the acceleration data are used to compute
velocity and motion relative to the other vehicle/barrier in our
laboratory tests, 0 G vertical is defined with the gravity term not
removed, hence 0 G vertical would be observed when the vertical
accelerometer is as rest.
``Pretensioner''
The NPRM defined ``pretensioner'' as ``a device that is activated
by a vehicle's crash sensing system and removes slack from a vehicle
belt system.'' GM, DaimlerChrysler, Ford, and Toyota requested a minor
change in the definition of the term ``pretensioner'' to clarify that
vehicle belt system means vehicle safety belt system. We agree that the
addition of the word ``safety'' provides clarity, and we have revised
the term.
``Safety Belt Status''
The NPRM defined ``safety belt status'' as ``an occupant's safety
belt is buckled or not buckled.'' GM, DaimlerChrysler, Ford, and Toyota
recommended modifying the term to read: ``safety belt status means the
feedback, as recorded by the EDR function, from the safety system that
is used to determine that the safety belt is fastened.'' The
commenters' rationale is that some safety belt technologies provide
safety belt status feedback without evaluation of the buckle status. We
agree and have modified the definition in accordance with the
recommendations. The definitions for both driver and right front
passenger ``safety belt status'' now read: ``the feedback from the
safety system that is used to determine that an occupant's safety belt
is fastened or not fastened.''
``Side Air Bag'' and ``Side Curtain/Tube Air Bag''
The NPRM defined ``side air bag'' as ``any inflatable occupant
restraint device that is mounted to the seat or side structure of the
vehicle interior at or below the window sill, and that is designed to
deploy and protect the occupants in a side impact crash.'' The proposal
defined ``side curtain/tube air bag'' as ``any inflatable occupant
restraint device that is mounted to the side structure of the vehicle
interior above the window sill, and that is designed to deploy and
protect the occupants in a side impact crash or rollover.''
GM and DaimlerChrysler recommended revising the NPRM's definitions
of ``side air bag'' and ``side curtain/tube air bag'' to simplify the
locational references in these definitions. GM's recommended
definitions would also drop the phrase ``and that is designed to deploy
and protect the occupants in a side impact crash,'' as it appears in
the NPRM. GM's rationale is that the agency's current definitions do
not fully comprehend evolving technology that may permit side curtains
in a variety of locations. Ford provided a nearly identical comment.
However, Ford recommended adding that these devices are ``designed to
help mitigate occupant injury and/or ejection.''
After considering the comments by GM, DaimlerChrysler, and Ford, we
have modified our definitions of ``side air bag'' and ``side curtain/
tube air bag'' to provide more flexibility for evolving technology.
However, we do believe that consumers need to know the conditions under
which side air bags will deploy. To that end, we have deleted the
specific mounting location references (i.e., above the window sill)
from the definitions and accepted Ford's recommendation, but retained
the language that the devices will deploy ``in a side impact'' crash
event.
In the final rule, the definition of ``side air bag'' now reads as
``any inflatable occupant restraint device that is mounted to the seat
or side structure of the vehicle interior, and that is designed to
deploy in a side impact crash to help mitigate occupant injury and/or
ejection.'' The final rule defines ``side curtain/tube air bag'' as
``any inflatable occupant restraint device that is mounted to the side
structure of the vehicle interior, and that is designed to deploy in a
side impact crash or rollover and to help mitigate occupant injury and/
or ejection.''
``Speed, Vehicle Indicated''
In the NPRM, we proposed to define ``speed, vehicle indicated'' as
``the speed indicated on the vehicle's speedometer.'' GM,
DaimlerChrysler, Ford, and Toyota recommended what they believe is a
more technically correct definition of the ``speed, vehicle
indicated,'' to read as follows: ``the speed indicated by a
manufacturer-designated subsystem designed to indicate the vehicle's
ground travel speed during vehicle operation, as recorded by the EDR.''
GM's rationale is that there are no data on the vehicle databus that
indicate the speed actually being displayed to the driver via the
speedometer. According to GM, vehicle speed should be reported as
determined by the appropriate vehicle subsystem(s), which vary among
manufacturers (e.g., wheel speed sensors, driveline shaft sensors,
differential sensors, or transmission sensors). Nissan commented that
manufacturers should have the option of recording the vehicle speed
from a variety of systems (e.g., ABS) instead of the instrument panel
speed. AIAM provided a similar comment.
We agree that the definition of ``speed, vehicle indicated'' in the
final rule should be modified in a matter
[[Page 51038]]
consistent with these recommendations. Accordingly, the definition of
``speed, vehicle indicated'' now reads: ``the speed indicated by a
manufacturer-designated subsystem designed to indicate the vehicle's
ground travel speed during vehicle operation.''
Timing Issues
GM, DaimlerChrysler, Ford, and Toyota recommended revising the
NPRM's definitions for ``time to deploy,'' ``time to first stage,'' and
``time to nth stage'' to clarify that the elapsed time is in
milliseconds and that those times are to be measured from time zero to
the time of the air bag deployment command (rather than to the time of
air bag inflation or air bag firing).
We agree with the commenters' suggestions for clarification of the
time data elements for the air bag systems and other commanded systems,
such as pretensioners. Accordingly, we have revised all relevant
definitions, including ``time to deploy, pretensioner,'' to reflect
that these elements are measured to the time of the deployment command
signal that is generated within the control unit.
``Time Zero'' and ``End of Event Time''
The NPRM defined ``time zero'' as the ``beginning of the first 20
ms interval in which the trigger threshold is met during an event.''
GM, DaimlerChrysler, Ford, and Toyota recommended revising the
definition for ``time zero'' in order to better standardize a common
reference point for all EDR data, thereby facilitating comparisons
among data sets from different vehicles. GM proposed new language for
that definition.
We have reviewed this definition of ``time zero'' in conjunction
with our newly adopted definition of ``trigger threshold,'' and we have
taken into account the different types of EDR system algorithms (e.g.,
ones with continuously running algorithms, as opposed to ones using an
algorithm ``wake-up'' strategy). As discussed above, we have revised
the definition of ``trigger threshold'' to mean ``8 km/h within a 150
ms interval.'' This defines the crash level that will be captured and
recorded in the EDR. We acknowledge that OEMs use different operational
strategies to sense a crash in their air bag control modules. For
example, some manufacturers use a continuously operating system that is
always on and sensing acceleration and analyzing the signal(s) to make
an air bag command decision. In contrast, other manufacturers utilize
systems that ``wake up'' when a crash occurs.
We agree that ``time zero'' needs to be defined so as to ensure
that each of these strategies will result in similar crash data time
reporting in the EDR record. To accomplish this, NHTSA has turned to
SAE J1698 for additional guidance. SAE, working with members from
companies that employ the two operating strategies, has worked out
these issues, so we have adopted this approach, as discussed below.
For systems that wake up, ``time zero'' is defined as the time the
control algorithm is activated. When a crash occurs, the system wakes
up almost instantly, and it starts processing the crash data. Thus,
``time zero'' is established at or very close to the time the crash
starts. ``Wake up'' is typically determined by the accelerometer
exceeding a pre-defined threshold for a pre-defined time period, such
as 2 G for 1 ms. The data are captured, and if the delta-V exceeds 8
km/h with in a 150 ms interval, the data are recorded.
For systems with continuously running algorithms, the ``time zero''
determination is more complicated. In such systems, the CPU (central
processing unit) is continuously processing accelerometer data in order
to make air bag command decisions. SAE decided, for these systems, that
the start of an event should be defined by a change in velocity. Thus,
we have adopted the same strategy. For systems that run continuously,
we are defining ``time zero'' as the first time point where a
longitudinal, cumulative delta-V of over 0.8 km/h (0.5 mph) is reached
within a 20 ms time period. Since acceleration rises quickly in a major
crash, we anticipate that this strategy should work well, resulting in
time zeros in good agreement with the ``wake up'' systems. Thus, for
continuously-running systems, the CPU monitors the vehicle's
deceleration signal(s). If the total delta-V exceeds 8.0 km/h within a
150 ms period, an event is detected and the captured data are recorded.
In lateral crashes, the longitudinal trigger may not be triggered,
and in those cases, there would be no data recorded in the EDR. For
vehicles that choose to record ``delta-V, lateral,'' we are extending
the trigger threshold and time zero definition so that in those
vehicles, EDR data is recorded. We have turned to SAE J1698-1 for the
time zero definition, selecting time zero as the first point in the
interval where the cumulative, lateral delta-V equals or exceeds 0.8
km/h (0.5 mph) within a 5 ms interval.
To facilitate detection of a second event in a multi-event crash,
we have added a new definition to automate the detection of the end of
an event. After once again consulting SAE J1698-1, we have defined
``end of event time'' as the moment when the cumulative delta-V within
a 20 ms time period becomes 0.8 km/h (0.5 mph) or less. This will allow
manufacturers to develop methodologies to automatically detect the end
of one event and start processing data to determine whether a second
event occurs during the crash.
New Definitions
In reviewing our proposal and after making substantive
modifications to other parts of the final rule based on the public
comments, we have added a few terms to the ``definitions'' section of
the final rule's regulatory text for clarification purposes. The new
terms are: (1) ``Air bag warning lamp status,'' (2) ``deployment time,
frontal air bag,'' (3) ``volatile memory buffer,'' (4) ``non-volatile
memory buffer,'' (5) ``occupant position classification,'' and (6)
``end of event time.'' We also modified the definitions of ``occupant
size classification'' and ``seat position'' to make them more flexible
to account for developing technologies.
c. Data Capture
In the NPRM, we explained that once the trigger threshold has been
met or exceeded, EDR data elements are captured in volatile memory. We
further explained that the EDR continues to capture data for an
additional 500 ms. The EDR makes a determination (by comparing the
absolute values of the maximum delta-V captured with the data
previously recorded) of whether to discard the EDR data captured in
favor of a previously recorded data set. We proposed a specific
hierarchy on how an EDR should capture and record data, including data
in cases of multi-event crashes. This strategy was proposed so that the
EDR would retain crash data associated with the higher maximum delta-V.
We developed this method in the NPRM to ensure that the EDR does not
overwrite an important file generated in a crash with a minor
subsequent event, such as loading a crashed car on a wrecker.
GM, DaimlerChrysler, Ford, and Toyota recommended that NHSTA delete
subparagraphs (a), (b), (c), (f) from our proposed regulatory text
section on ``data capture.'' Those commenters also suggested that NHSTA
replace subparagraphs (d) and (e), which discuss data capture
requirements associated with air bag deployment, with the following
language: ``a non-deployment event will overwrite a non-deployment
event of lesser magnitude; deployment events must always overwrite non-
deployment events; deployment events must lock the record and may not
be overwritten.''
[[Page 51039]]
In their comments, GM, DaimlerChrysler, Ford, and Toyota stated
that the NPRM's proposed data capture requirements are complex and
ambiguous and do not accurately recognize the system architecture in
restraint control modules. These four commenters also stated that the
requirements do not take into consideration the limitations of current
technology. They argued that it is impractical to simultaneously buffer
data, to write data to nonvolatile memory, to analyze the severity of
the impact(s), and to appropriately deploy restraints.
To reduce the risk of data loss, Nissan stated that an air bag
deployment event should be written to memory and locked, and that all
further recording should cease. Advocates questioned whether a 5-second
window is sufficient to capture an entire post-crash event.
We have carefully considered the comments and have developed a
modified strategy for making the data recording decision, based on the
comments submitted by the manufacturers. We have adopted these
commenters' suggestions for a new definition of ``trigger threshold,''
and based upon this new definition, all crashes captured and recorded
will be of significant magnitude to be of interest. Thus, the
comparative process, as proposed, is no longer necessary.
We also have decided that collecting data associated with an air
bag event is our priority. Accordingly, in the final rule, we have
specified a new capture logic that accounts for the comments,
simplifies the EDR design, reduces the risk of losing important air bag
data, and will likely reduce costs.
The new methodology requires the EDR to make two analytical
decisions: one is related to an air bag crash event, and the other is
related to a non-air bag crash event. In those crash events where an
air bag is commanded to deploy, the EDR must delete the data previously
recorded, and the data from the air bag crash event must be captured,
recorded, and locked to prevent overwriting. In those crashes where air
bags are not commanded to deploy, our logic deletes all previously
captured and recorded data, for up to two events. If the second event
turns out to be air bag related, the logic calls for a revision to the
first condition. In these cases, collection of the first non-air bag
related event is not necessary but is acceptable. We believe that this
logic provides relief in terms of the need for increased CPU power that
might otherwise be necessary for an EDR to analyze and capture EDR data
during a time when it might complicate safety-critical decisions.
d. Miscellaneous Comments
SEMA urged NHTSA to refrain from adopting requirements that could
ossify EDR technology, commenting that the EDR system needs to be
adaptable to allow for future developments and to work with other
vehicle systems. According to SEMA, the system should not preclude
servicing, repair, or installation of aftermarket equipment. SEMA
argued that manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle
repair businesses must have sufficient information about the EDR system
to be able to service the vehicle and to install new or replacement
products without fear of taking vehicle equipment out of compliance
with any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. In response
to SEMA's comments, we do not believe that these systems will be any
more complicated than current air bag control systems. EDRs are not new
to the marketplace, and no specific problem of this sort has been
brought to NHTSA's attention.
NADA, EPIC, and Honda commented on the need for public education
and awareness of EDRs. NADA stated that NHTSA should work to educate
the public ``that, in addition to the potential for improving vehicle
and roadway safety design effectiveness, appropriately utilized EDR
system information will help to reduce accident-related investigation,
medical, legal, and insurance costs.'' EPIC commented that currently,
public awareness and understanding of EDRs is insufficient. EPIC urged
NHTSA to create an EDR information website to educate the public about
EDR technology and its uses, what types of users may gain access to EDR
information and the circumstances under which it may be accessed, and
privacy rights associated with EDR data.
NHTSA agrees with the value of a Web site dedicated to EDRs. About
five years ago, NHTSA launched the first EDR Web site. The Web site
contained historical information about EDR technology, research
material regarding EDR uses, patent information and other resources. In
late 2004, NHTSA commenced work on a full update to the Web site, which
was completed in early 2005. It is accessible through NHTSA's Web site,
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov, and at http://safercar.gov.
Concurrent with the publication of this final rule, we are posting
a consumer-directed set of ``questions and answers'' on our Web site to
provide educational materials and to raise awareness about the presence
and functionality of EDRs. Topics include common privacy concerns and
NHTSA's protocol for requesting EDR data during crash investigations.
In developing these materials, we will consider NADA's recommendations
to inform consumers that EDRs could lead to reductions in accident-
related investigation, medical, legal, and insurance costs. Our plan is
to keep these materials up to date, by adding new information as unique
questions from the public are raised.
Honda suggested that NHTSA should conduct an EDR workshop so that
all critical issues can be explored and discussed, thereby facilitating
issuance of a final rule in an expedient fashion and minimizing the
need for petitions for reconsideration. Although an EDR workshop, as
recommended by Honda, would offer a means of gaining additional EDR-
related input, we have decided that such a meeting is not necessary
before proceeding to a final rule.
ATA stated that NHTSA should conduct additional human factors
research to determine the effect of driver and employee awareness of
EDRs on the number and severity of crashes. ATA's comment pertains to
research, not to this final rule. We note, however, that we believe the
issue of EDR awareness as related to the number and severity of crashes
may be a valuable area for future research.
Public Citizen offered additional recommendations, including: (1)
NHTSA should to fully integrate EDR data into all of its data
collection systems and crash investigations; (2) police and municipal
officials should be trained to enable them to collect accurate and
complete EDR data for the Fatality Analyses Reporting System (FARS)
database; and (3) NHTSA should create a new database solely for EDR
data.
We agree with Public Citizen regarding the value of incorporating
EDR data into our national databases. Starting in 2000, NHTSA began to
routinely collect EDR data in our NASS/CDS, SCI, and Crash Injury
Research and Engineering Network (CIREN) data systems. To date, we have
colleted over 2,700 cases with EDR data. However, we are not collecting
EDR data in FARS at this time. The agency is working with police
officials to develop guidelines for training classes to ensure that EDR
data are downloaded properly and that these officials are educated on
the limitations of these devices.
The European Communities requested that the U.S. refrain from
finalizing its EDR proposal until there has been an opportunity for
further consultations both bilaterally and in international fora. The
European Communities'
[[Page 51040]]
rationale is that EDRs have been identified as an item for bilateral
research cooperation between NHTSA and the Directorate-General
Enterprise of the European Commission. The European Communities also
noted that the World Forum for Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations
(WP.29), administered by the UN Economic Commission for Europe (ECE),
has agreed to establish an informal working group on EDRs. The European
Communities expressed hope that with U.S. participation, it would be
possible to develop a global technical regulation for EDRs.
We have carefully considered the EC's comments. NHTSA has concluded
that it needs to move forward at this time with a basic set of
requirements, because EDR data can help the government and industry
better understand crash events and safety system performance, thereby
contributing to safer vehicle designs and more effective safety
regulations. EDR data can also play a role in advancing developing
networks for providing emergency medical services, such as ACN. The
agency has sought to establish this foundation in a way that would
encourage broad application of EDR technologies in motor vehicles and
maximize the usefulness of EDR data for researchers, regulators, and
the medical community, while avoiding the imposition of unnecessary
burdens or hampering future improvements to EDRs.
NHTSA looks forward to continuing work on this issue with the
European Communities, as well as with the international community under
the auspices of the World Forum for the Harmonization of Vehicle
Regulations administered by the United Nations. The action taken today
in no way precludes achieving common understandings in the future.
Mr. Bretherton, an individual, commented that better coordination
of Traffic Records Coordinating Committees (TRCCs) within States is
needed to facilitate the use of crash data and that funding is needed
to address technology needs, to make data uniform between States, and
to ensure data collection by all States. He expressed concern that
local governments may have increased liability as a result of crash
data. He also stated that ``Fast FARS'' is not a good use of resources.
Again, although these issues are worth considering at an appropriate
time and in an appropriate forum, they are beyond the scope of the
present rulemaking.
V. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
A. Vehicle Safety Act
Under 49 U.S.C. 322(a), the Secretary of Transportation (the
``Secretary'') has authority to prescribe regulations to carry out
duties and power of the Secretary. One of the duties of the Secretary
is to administer the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as
amended. The Secretary has delegated the responsibility for carrying
out the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to NHTSA.\58\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\58\ 49 U.S.C. 105 and 322; delegation of authority at 49 CFR
1.50.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We note that in 1994, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety
Act, as amended, was repealed and simultaneously codified into 49
U.S.C. Chapter 301, Motor Vehicle Safety, by Pub. L. 103-272 (July 5,
1994). This involved moving these provisions from 15 U.S.C. Chapter 38
to 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301. Section 1(a) of Pub. L. 103-272 stated that
the laws codified were so codified ``without substantive change.''
Prior to this codification, a specific provision in 15 U.S.C. 1407
provided, ``The Secretary is authorized to issue, amend, and revoke
such rules and regulations as he deems necessary to carry out this
subchapter.'' However, in the codification process, this provision was
deleted as unnecessary, because, as specifically noted in the
legislative history, the Secretary already had such powers pursuant to
49 U.S.C. 322(a).\59\ Thus, the Secretary, and NHTSA, have general
authority to issue such rules and regulations as deemed necessary to
carry out Chapter 301 of Title 49, United States Code.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\59\ H.R. Rep. No. 103-180, Table 2A, at 584 (1993).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, Motor Vehicle Safety (49 U.S.C. 30101
et seq.), the Secretary of Transportation, and, by delegation, NHTSA,
is responsible for prescribing motor vehicle safety standards that are
practicable, meet the need for motor vehicle safety, and are stated in
objective terms.\60\ These motor vehicle safety standards set the
minimum level of performance for a motor vehicle or motor vehicle
equipment to be considered safe.\61\ When prescribing such standards,
NHTSA must consider all relevant, available motor vehicle safety
information.\62\ NHTSA also must consider whether a proposed standard
is reasonable, practicable, and appropriate for the type of motor
vehicle or motor vehicle equipment for which it is prescribed and the
extent to which the standard will further the statutory purpose of
reducing traffic accidents and associated deaths.\63\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\60\ 49 U.S.C. 30111(a).
\61\ 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(9).
\62\ 49 U.S.C. 30111(b).
\63\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Similar to our approach in the area of vehicle identification
numbers, we decided to develop a general regulation for EDRs rather
than a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. We did not believe it was
appropriate to issue an FMVSS that would trigger the statute's recall
and remedy provisions, because the benefits of EDRs are expected to be
derivative from better crash-related information, rather than having a
direct impact on the safety of the individual vehicle equipped with an
EDR. A failure to meet the EDR requirements would, however, be subject
to an enforcement action. While we have not issued the regulation as an
FMVSS, however, we have generally followed the statutory requirements
that apply to FMVSSs.
First, this final rule was preceded by an initial request for
comments and an NPRM, which facilitated the efforts of the agency to
obtain and consider relevant motor vehicle safety information, as well
as public comments. Further, in preparing this document, the agency
carefully evaluated available research, testing results, and other
information related to various EDR technologies. We have also updated
our economic estimates and analyses to account for new cost information
provided by public commenters. In sum, this document reflects our
consideration of all relevant, available motor vehicle safety
information.
Second, to ensure that the EDR requirements are practicable, the
agency considered the cost, availability, and suitability of requiring
various EDR data elements, consistent with our safety objectives. We
note that EDRs are already installed on most light vehicles, and
because the data elements in the final rule are to a large extent
already incorporated in EDRs, we believe that it will be practicable to
standardize these data elements in light vehicles voluntarily equipped
with EDRs and that such incremental changes will be minor. In light of
the steady advances made in EDR technologies over the past few years,
we believe that vehicle manufacturers will have a number of
technological choices available for meeting the requirements of the
final rule for EDRs. In sum, we believe that this final rule is
practicable and will provide several benefits, including provision of
better pre-crash and crash-related data that may be valuable for
designing safer vehicles and for use by medical first responders.
[[Page 51041]]
Third, the regulatory text following this preamble is stated in
objective terms in order to specify precisely what performance is
required and how performance will be tested to ensure compliance with
the regulation. Specifically, the final rule sets forth performance
requirements for operation of the EDRs, including the type of data that
the EDR must capture and record, the data's range/accuracy/resolution,
and the data's retrievability.
The final rule also includes test requirements for the
survivability of EDR data through reference to existing crash test
requirements in other FMVSSs (i.e., Standard Nos. 208 and 214). This
approach helps ensure that EDR data survive most crashes without
establishing news kinds of vehicle tests. The test procedures under
FMVSS Nos. 208 and 214 already carefully delineate how testing is
conducted. Thus, the agency believes that these test procedures are
sufficiently objective and will not result in any uncertainty as to
whether a given vehicle satisfies the requirements of the EDR
regulation.
Fourth, we believe that this final rule will meet the need for
motor vehicle safety because the EDR regulation will help researchers
better understand pre-crash and crash events. Standardization of EDR
data should improve the consistency and comparability of these data.
This information will be useful to NHTSA, vehicle manufacturers, and
other interested stakeholders for a variety of purposes, including
developing safety vehicle designs and more effective regulations. In
addition, standardized EDR data may be useful for ACN and other systems
for providing emergency medical services.
Finally, we believe that this final rule is reasonable and
appropriate for motor vehicles subject to the applicable requirements
(i.e., light vehicles voluntarily equipped with EDRs). As discussed
elsewhere in this notice, the agency has sought to limit the minimum
data set in this final rule to those elements necessary to achieve the
agency's stated purposes and to minimize the burdens associated with
the regulation. We believe that because most EDRs already possess many
of these capabilities, any required adjustments should be minor.
Accordingly, we believe that this final rule is appropriate for covered
vehicles that are or would become subject to these provisions of the
EDR regulation because it furthers the agency's objective of preventing
deaths and serious injuries through better understanding of crash-
related events that may lead to safer vehicle designs and more
effective regulations.
B. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review'' (58 FR
51735, October 4, 1993), provides for making determinations whether a
regulatory action is ``significant'' and therefore subject to OMB
review and to the requirements of the Executive Order. The Order
defines a ``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to
result in a rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or Tribal governments or
communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
This final rule has been determined to be significant, and the
agency has prepared a separate document, a Final Regulatory Evaluation,
addressing the benefits and costs for the rule. (A copy is available in
the docket for this rulemaking.) As a significant notice, it was
reviewed under Executive Order 12866. The rule is also significant
within the meaning of the Department of Transportation's Regulatory
Policies and Procedures. While the potential cost impacts of the final
rule are far below the level that would make this a significant
rulemaking, the rulemaking addresses a topic of substantial public
interest.
As discussed in that document and in the preceding sections of this
final rule, the crash data that will be collected by EDRs under this
rule will be valuable for the improvement of vehicle safety. We believe
that the EDR data we collect will improve crash investigations, the
evaluation of safety countermeasures, advanced restraint and safety
countermeasure research and development, and advanced ACN. However, the
improvement in vehicle safety will not occur directly from the
collection of crash data by EDRs, but instead from the ways in which
the data are used by researchers, vehicle manufacturers, ACN and EMS
providers, government agencies, and other members of the safety
community. Therefore, it is not presently practical to quantify the
safety benefits.
We estimate that about 64 percent of new light vehicles are already
equipped with EDRs. As discussed earlier, vehicle manufacturers have
provided EDRs in their vehicles by adding EDR capability to their
vehicles' air bag control systems. The costs of EDRs have been
minimized, because they involve the capture into memory of data that is
already being processed by the vehicle, and not the much higher costs
of sensing much of that data in the first place.
The costs of the rule will be the incremental costs for vehicles
equipped with EDRs to comply with the requirements. As discussed in the
agency's separate document on benefits and costs, we estimate the total
costs of the final rule will range up to $1.7 million. While the
potential costs include technology costs, administrative costs, and
compliance costs, the administrative and compliance costs are estimated
to be negligible. The final rule will not require additional sensors to
be installed in vehicles, and the primary technology cost will result
from a need to upgrade EDR memory chips. The total cost for the
estimated 9.8 million vehicles that already have an EDR function to
comply with the regulation will range up to $1.7 million. If
manufacturers were to provide EDRs in all 15.5 million light vehicles,
the estimated total cost will range up to $10.9 million. A complete
discussion of how NHTSA arrived at these costs may be found in the
separate document on benefits and costs.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
NHTSA has considered the impacts of this rulemaking action under
the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) I certify that
the final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
The following is the agency's statement providing the factual basis
for the certification (5 U.S.C. 605(b)). This rule directly affects
motor vehicle manufacturers, second stage or final manufacturers, and
alterers. Business entities are defined as ``small businesses'' using
the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code, for the
purposes of receiving Small Business Administration assistance. One of
the criteria for determining size, as stated in 13 CFR 121.201, is the
number of employees in the firm. Affected business categories include
the following. To qualify as a small business in: (a) Automotive
Manufacturing (NAICS 336111), the
[[Page 51042]]
firm must have fewer than 1,000 employees; (b) Light Truck and Utility
Vehicle Manufacturing (NAICS 336112), the firm must have fewer than
1,000 employees; (c) Motor Vehicle Body Manufacturing (NAICS 336211),
the firm must have fewer than 1,000 employees; (d) All Other Motor
Vehicle Parts Manufacturing (NAICS 336399), the firm must have fewer
than 750 employees; (e) Computer Storage Manufacturers (NAICS 334111),
the firm must have fewer than 1,000 employees, and (f) Software
Reproducing (NAICS 334611), the firm must have fewer than 500
employees.
Only four of the 18 motor vehicle manufacturers affected by this
rule qualify as a small business. Most of the intermediate and final
stage manufacturers of vehicles built in two or more stages and
alterers have 1,000 or fewer employees. However, these small businesses
adhere to original equipment manufacturers' instructions in
manufacturing modified and altered vehicles. Based on our knowledge,
original equipment manufacturers do not permit a final stage
manufacturer or alterer to modify or alter sophisticated devices such
as air bags or EDRs. Therefore, multistage manufacturers and alterers
will be able to rely on the certification and information provided by
the original equipment manufacturer. Accordingly, there will be no
significant impact on small business, small organizations, or small
governmental units by these amendments.
D. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
Executive Order 13132 sets forth principles of federalism and the
related policies of the Federal government. As noted above, NHTSA
expects that general principles of preemption law would operate so as
to displace any conflicting State law or regulations (for further
discussion of preemption, see section IV.B.9 above).
NHTSA sought comment from all stakeholders on the issue of
preemption through publication of the proposed rule in the Federal
Register. NHTSA received one comment on the proposed rule from State
and local governmental entities.
Additionally, officials at NHTSA consulted with organizations
representing the interests of state and local governments and officials
about this rulemaking and the issue of preemption.
NHTSA has complied with Executive Order 13132 and has determined
that this final rule is consistent with its provisions.
E. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)
Executive Order 12988 requires that agencies review proposed
regulations and legislation and adhere to the following general
requirements: (1) The agency's proposed legislation and regulations
shall be reviewed by the agency to eliminate drafting errors and
ambiguity; (2) The agency's proposed legislation and regulations shall
be written to minimize litigation; and (3) The agency's proposed
legislation and regulations shall provide a clear legal standard for
affected conduct rather than a general standard, and shall promote
simplification and burden reduction.
When promulgating a regulation, Executive Order 12988, specifically
requires that the agency must make every reasonable effort to ensure
that the regulation, as appropriate: (1) Specifies in clear language
the preemptive effect; (2) specifies in clear language the effect on
existing Federal law or regulation, including all provisions repealed,
circumscribed, displaced, impaired, or modified; (3) provides a clear
legal standard for affected conduct rather than a general standard,
while promoting simplification and burden reduction; (4) specifies in
clear language the retroactive effect; (5) specifies whether
administrative proceedings are to be required before parties may file
suit in court; (6) explicitly or implicitly defines key terms; and (7)
addresses other important issues affecting clarity and general
draftsmanship of regulations.
NHTSA has reviewed this final rule according to the general
requirements and the specific requirements for regulations set forth in
Executive Order 12988. The issue of the preemptive effect of this final
rule was discussed in detail in the section on Executive Order 13132
(Federalism) immediately above, so rather than repeat those points
here, we would refer readers to that section for a full discussion. A
petition for reconsideration or other administrative proceeding is not
required before parties may file suit in court.
F. Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children From Health and Safety
Risks)
Executive Order 13045, ``Protection of Children from Environmental
Health and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19855, April 23, 1997), applies to any
rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant'' as
defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental,
health, or safety risk that the agency has reason to believe may have a
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets
both criteria, the agency must evaluate the environmental health or
safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and
reasonable feasible alternatives considered by the agency.
Because the EDR final rule is not an economically significant
regulatory action under Executive Order 12866 and does not involve
decisions based upon health and safety risks that disproportionately
affect children, no further analysis under Executive Order 13045 is
necessary.
G. Paperwork Reduction Act
GM DaimlerChrysler, Ford, and Toyota commented that the agency's
NPRM underestimated the paperwork burden associated with section
563.12's requirement for filing technical instructions for
manufacturing download devices for each vehicle model. The NPRM
estimated those paperwork costs as 20 hours per year per manufacturer.
GM's rationale is that the proposed requirement to file this
information 90 days prior to the start of production for each vehicle
model would require a continuous stream of data filings for the
multiple vehicle launches that full-line manufacturers have throughout
the calendar year. According to GM, each filing would involve a
compilation of the technical data, as well as technical and legal
review, tasks which would require more than 20 hours of work for each
vehicle model.
These concerns have been addressed because we have decided not to
adopt the proposed provision, so deleting those reporting requirements
eliminates the paperwork costs that had been associated with this
rulemaking. Thus, there are not any information collection requirements
associated with this final rule.
H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113 (15 U.S.C. 272) directs the
agency to evaluate and use voluntary consensus standards in its
regulatory activities unless doing so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or is otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus
standards are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test
methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are
developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies, such as
the Society of Automotive Engineers. The NTTAA
[[Page 51043]]
directs us to provide Congress (through OMB) with explanations when the
agency decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus
standards. The NTTAA does not apply to symbols.
There are several consensus standards related to EDRs, most notably
those standards published by SAE and IEEE. NHTSA has carefully
considered the consensus standards applicable to EDR data elements.
Consensus standards for recording time/intervals, data sample rates,
data retrieval, data reliability, data range, accuracy and precision,
and EDR crash survivability were evaluated by NHTSA and adopted when
practicable.
In this final rule, we have incorporated by reference SAE
Recommended Practice J211-1, March 1995, ``Instrumentation for Impact
Test--Part 1--Electronic Instrumentation.'' For those manufacturers
that prefer to record acceleration data instead of or in addition to
delta-V, SAE J211-1 provides a standard for filtering the acceleration
data that are then converted to delta-V either during the recording
period or in the data downloading process.
Previously in this notice, NHTSA has explained why other voluntary
consensus standards were not adopted for certain technical standards
set forth in this rule. For further analysis of the incorporation of
consensus standards, please refer to section IV.B.14 above.
I. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA)
requires Federal agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs,
benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a
Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local, or
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of more
than $ 100 million in any one year (adjusted for inflation with base
year of 1995). Section 205 of the UMRA generally requires that, before
promulgating a rule for which a written statement is needed, NHTSA
identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives
and adopt the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome
alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of
section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable
law. Moreover, section 205 allows NHTSA to adopt an alternative other
than the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome
alternative if the agency publishes with the final rule an explanation
why that alternative was not adopted.
This rule does not impose any unfunded mandates under the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995. The rule does not result in the
expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments, or the private
sector, in the aggregate, or more than $118 million annually (2004
dollars). Thus, this final rule is not subject to the requirements of
sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.
J. National Environmental Policy Act
NHTSA has analyzed this rulemaking action for the purposes of the
National Environmental Policy Act. The agency has determined that
implementation of this action will not have any significant impact on
the quality of the human environment.
K. Regulatory Identifier Number
The Department of Transportation assigns a regulation identifier
number (RIN) to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of
Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center
publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. You may
use the RIN contained in the heading at the beginning of this document
to find this action in the Unified Agenda.
L. Privacy Act
Please note that anyone is able to search the electronic form of
all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the
individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted
on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.) You may
review DOT's complete Privacy Act statement in the Federal Register
published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70, Pages 19477-78), or
you may visit http://dms.dot.gov.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 563
Incorporation by reference, Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
0
For the reasons stated in the preamble, NHTSA hereby amends chapter V
of title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations by adding 49 CFR part
563 to read as follows:
PART 563--EVENT DATA RECORDERS
Sec.
563.1 Scope.
563.2 Purpose.
563.3 Application.
563.4 Incorporation by reference.
563.5 Definitions.
563.6 Requirements for vehicles.
563.7 Data elements.
563.8 Data format.
563.9 Data capture.
563.10 Crash test performance and survivability.
563.11 Information in owner's manual.
563.12 Data retrieval tools.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30101, 30111, 30115, 30117, 30166,
30168; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.
Sec. 563.1 Scope.
This part specifies uniform, national requirements for vehicles
equipped with event data recorders (EDRs) concerning the collection,
storage, and retrievability of onboard motor vehicle crash event data.
It also specifies requirements for vehicle manufacturers to make tools
and/or methods commercially available so that crash investigators and
researchers are able to retrieve data from EDRs.
Sec. 563.2 Purpose.
The purpose of this part is to help ensure that EDRs record, in a
readily usable manner, data valuable for effective crash investigations
and for analysis of safety equipment performance (e.g., advanced
restraint systems). These data will help provide a better understanding
of the circumstances in which crashes and injuries occur and will lead
to safer vehicle designs.
Sec. 563.3 Application.
This part applies to the following vehicles manufactured on or
after September 1, 2010, if they are equipped with an event data
recorder: passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and
buses with a GVWR of 3,855 kg (8,500 pounds) or less and an unloaded
vehicle weight of 2,495 kg (5,500 pounds) or less, except for walk-in
van-type trucks or vehicles designed to be sold exclusively to the U.S.
Postal Service. This part also applies to manufacturers of those
vehicles. However, vehicles manufactured before September 1, 2011 that
are manufactured in two or more stages or that are altered (within the
meaning of 49 CFR 567.7) after having been previously certified to the
Federal motor vehicle safety standards in accordance with Part 567 of
this chapter need not meet the requirements of this part.
Sec. 563.4 Incorporation by reference.
The materials listed in this section are incorporated by reference
in the corresponding sections as noted. These incorporations by
reference were approved by the Director of the Federal Register in
accordance with 5 U.S.C. 522(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies of these
materials may be inspected at the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, Technical Information
[[Page 51044]]
Services, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Plaza Level, Room 403, Washington,
DC 20590, or at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA,
call (202) 741-6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.
(a) The following materials are available for purchase from the
Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc., 400 Commonwealth Drive,
Warrendale, PA 15096-0001.
(1) Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) Recommended Practice
J211-1 rev. March 1995, ``Instrumentation For Impact Test--Part 1--
Electronic Instrumentation'' SAE J211-1 (rev. March 1995) is
incorporated by reference in Table 3 of Sec. 563.8;
(2) [Reserved]
(b) [Reserved]
Sec. 563.5 Definitions.
(a) Motor vehicle safety standard definitions. Unless otherwise
indicated, all terms that are used in this part and are defined in the
Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, part 571 of this subchapter, are used
as defined therein.
(b) Other definitions.
ABS activity means the anti-lock brake system (ABS) is actively
controlling the vehicle's brakes.
Air bag warning lamp status means whether the warning lamp required
by FMVSS No. 208 is on or off.
Capture means the process of buffering EDR data in a temporary,
volatile storage medium where it is continuously updated at regular
time intervals.
Delta-V, lateral means the cumulative change in velocity, as
recorded by the EDR of the vehicle, along the lateral axis, starting
from crash time zero and ending at 0.25 seconds, and recorded every
0.01 seconds.
Delta-V, longitudinal means the cumulative change in velocity, as
recorded by the EDR of the vehicle, along the longitudinal axis,
starting from crash time zero and ending at 0.25 seconds, recorded
every 0.01 seconds.
Deployment time, frontal air bag means (for both driver and right
front passenger) the elapsed time from crash time zero to the
deployment command or for multi-staged air bag systems, the deployment
command for the first stage.
Disposal means the deployment command of the second (or higher, if
present) stage of a frontal air bag for the purpose of disposing the
propellant from the air bag device.
End of event time means the moment at which the cumulative delta-V
within a 20 ms time period becomes 0.8 km/h (0.5 mph) or less.
Engine RPM means, for vehicles powered by internal combustion
engines, the number of revolutions per minute of the main crankshaft of
the vehicle's engine, and for vehicles not powered by internal
combustion engines, the number of revolutions per minute of the motor
shaft at the point at which it enters the vehicle transmission gearbox.
Engine throttle, percent full means the driver requested
acceleration as measured by the throttle position sensor on the
accelerator pedal compared to the fully depressed position.
Event means a crash or other physical occurrence that causes the
trigger threshold to be met or exceeded.
Event data recorder (EDR) means a device or function in a vehicle
that records the vehicle's dynamic, time-series data during the time
period just prior to a crash event (e.g., vehicle speed vs. time) or
during a crash event (e.g., delta-V vs. time), intended for retrieval
after the crash event. For the purposes of this definition, the event
data do not include audio and video data.
Frontal air bag means an inflatable restraint system that requires
no action by vehicle occupants and is used to meet the applicable
frontal crash protection requirements of FMVSS No. 208.
Ignition cycle, crash means the number (count) of power cycles
applied to the recording device at the time when the crash event
occurred since the first use of the EDR.
Ignition cycle download means the number (count) of power cycles
applied to the recording device at the time when the data was
downloaded since the first use of the EDR.
Lateral acceleration means the component of the vector acceleration
of a point in the vehicle in the y-direction. The lateral acceleration
is positive from left to right, from the perspective of the driver when
seated in the vehicle facing the direction of forward vehicle travel.
Longitudinal acceleration means the component of the vector
acceleration of a point in the vehicle in the x-direction. The
longitudinal acceleration is positive in the direction of forward
vehicle travel.
Maximum delta-V, lateral means the maximum value of the cumulative
change in velocity, as recorded by the EDR, of the vehicle along the
lateral axis, starting from crash time zero and ending at 0.3 seconds.
Maximum delta-V, longitudinal means the maximum value of the
cumulative change in velocity, as recorded by the EDR, of the vehicle
along the longitudinal axis, starting from crash time zero and ending
at 0.3 seconds.
Multi-event crash means the occurrence of 2 events, the first and
last of which begin not more than 5 seconds apart.
Non-volatile memory means the memory reserved for maintaining
recorded EDR data in a semi-permanent fashion. Data recorded in non-
volatile memory is retained after a loss of power and can be retrieved
with EDR data extraction tools and methods.
Normal acceleration means the component of the vector acceleration
of a point in the vehicle in the z-direction. The normal acceleration
is positive in a downward direction and is zero when the accelerometer
is at rest.
Occupant position classification means the classification
indicating that the seating posture of a front outboard occupant (both
driver and right front passenger) is determined as being out-of-
position.
Occupant size classification means, for right front passenger, the
classification of an occupant as an adult and not a child, and for
driver, the classification of the driver as not being of small stature.
Pretensioner means a device that is activated by a vehicle's crash
sensing system and removes slack from a vehicle safety belt system.
Record means the process of saving captured EDR data into a non-
volatile device for subsequent retrieval.
Safety belt status means the feedback from the safety system that
is used to determine than an occupant's safety belt (for both driver
and right front passenger) is fastened or not fastened.
Seat track position switch, foremost, status means the status of
the switch that is installed to detect whether the seat is moved to a
forward position.
Service brake, on and off means the status of the device that is
installed in or connected to the brake pedal system to detect whether
the pedal was pressed. The device can include the brake pedal switch or
other driver-operated service brake control.
Side air bag means any inflatable occupant restraint device that is
mounted to the seat or side structure of the vehicle interior, and that
is designed to deploy in a side impact crash to help mitigate occupant
injury and/or ejection.
Side curtain/tube air bag means any inflatable occupant restraint
device that is mounted to the side structure of the vehicle interior,
and that is designed to deploy in a side impact crash or rollover
[[Page 51045]]
and to help mitigate occupant injury and/or ejection.
Speed, vehicle indicated means the vehicle speed indicated by a
manufacturer-designated subsystem designed to indicate the vehicle's
ground travel speed during vehicle operation.
Stability control means any device that is not directly controlled
by the operator (e.g., steering or brakes) and is intended to prevent
loss of vehicle control by sensing, interpreting, and adjusting a
vehicle's driving and handling characteristics, is controlling or
assisting the driver in controlling the vehicle.
Steering wheel angle means the angular displacement of the steering
wheel measured from the straight-ahead position (position corresponding
to zero average steer angle of a pair of steered wheels).
Suppression switch status means the status of the switch indicating
whether an air bag suppression system is on or off.
Time from event 1 to 2 means the elapsed time from time zero of the
first event to time zero of the second event.
Time, maximum delta-V, longitudinal means the time from crash time
zero to the point where the maximum value of the cumulative change in
velocity is found, as recorded by the EDR, along the longitudinal axis.
Time to deploy, pretensioner means the elapsed time from crash time
zero to the deployment command for the safety belt pretensioner (for
both driver and right front passenger).
Time to deploy, side air bag/curtain means the elapsed time from
crash time zero to the deployment command for a side air bag or a side
curtain/tube air bag (for both driver and right front passenger).
Time to first stage means the elapsed time between time zero and
the time when the first stage of a frontal air bag is commanded to
fire.
Time to maximum delta-V, lateral means time from crash time zero to
the point where the maximum value of the cumulative change in velocity
is found, as recorded by the EDR, along the lateral axis.
Time to nth stage means the elapsed time from the crash
time zero to the deployment command for the nth stage of a frontal air
bag (for both driver and right front passenger).
Time zero means for systems with ``wake-up'' air bag control
systems, the time occupant restraint control algorithm is activated;
for continuously running algorithms, the first point in the interval
where a longitudinal, cumulative delta-V of over 0.8 km/h (0.5 mph) is
reached within a 20 ms time period; or for vehicles that record
``delta-V, lateral,'' the first point in the interval where a lateral,
cumulative delta-V of over 0.8 km/h (0.5 mph) is reached within a 5 ms
time period.
Trigger threshold means a change in vehicle velocity, in the
longitudinal direction, that equals or exceeds 8 km/h within a 150 ms
interval. For vehicles that record ``delta-V, lateral,'' trigger
threshold means a change in vehicle velocity, in either the
longitudinal or lateral direction that equals or exceeds 8 km/h within
a 150 ms interval.
Vehicle roll angle means the angle between the vehicle y-axis and
the ground plane.
Volatile memory means the memory reserved for buffering of captured
EDR data. The memory is not capable of retaining data in a semi-
permanent fashion. Data captured in a volatile memory is continuously
overwritten and is not retained in the event of a power loss or
retrievable with EDR data extraction tools.
X-direction means in the direction of the vehicle X-axis, which is
parallel to the vehicle's longitudinal centerline. The X-direction is
positive in the direction of forward vehicle travel.
Y-direction means in the direction of the vehicle Y-axis, which is
perpendicular to its X-axis and in the same horizontal plane as that
axis. The Y-direction is positive from left to right, from the
perspective of the driver when seated in the vehicle facing the
direction of forward vehicle travel.
Z-direction means in the direction of the vehicle Z-axis, which is
perpendicular to the X- and Y-axes. The Z-direction is positive in a
downward direction.
Sec. 563.6 Requirements for vehicles.
Each vehicle equipped with an EDR must meet the requirements
specified in Sec. 563.7 for data elements, Sec. 563.8 for data
format, Sec. 563.9 for data capture, Sec. 563.10 for crash test
performance and survivability, and Sec. 563.11 for information in
owner's manual.
Sec. 563.7 Data elements.
(a) Data elements required for all vehicles. Each vehicle equipped
with an EDR must record all of the data elements listed in Table I,
during the interval/time and at the sample rate specified in that
table.
Table I.--Data Elements Required for all Vehicles Equipped With an EDR
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recording interval/ Data sample
Data element time \1\ (relative rate samples
to time zero) per second
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Delta-V, longitudinal.............. 0 to 250 ms........ 100
Maximum delta-V, longitudinal...... 0-300 ms........... N.A.
Time, maximum delta-V.............. 0-300 ms........... N.A.
Speed, vehicle indicated........... -5.0 to 0 sec...... 2
Engine throttle, % full (or -5.0 to 0 sec...... 2
accelerator pedal, % full).
Service brake, on/off.............. -5.0 to 0 sec...... 2
Ignition cycle, crash.............. -1.0 sec........... N.A.
Ignition cycle, download........... At time of download N.A.
Safety belt status, driver......... -1.0 sec........... N.A.
Frontal air bag warning lamp, on/ -1.0 sec........... N.A.
off.
Frontal air bag deployment, time to Event.............. N.A.
deploy, in the case of a single
stage air bag, or time to first
stage deployment, in the case of a
multi-stage air bag, driver.
Frontal air bag deployment, time to Event.............. N.A.
deploy, in the case of a single
stage air bag, or time to first
stage deployment, in the case of a
multi-stage air bag, right front
passenger.
Multi-event, number of events (1,2) Event.............. N.A.
Time from event 1 to 2............. As needed.......... N.A.
Complete file recorded (yes, no)... Following other N.A.
data.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pre-crash data and crash data are asynchronous. The sample time
accuracy requirement for pre-crash time is -0.1 to 1.0 sec (e.g., T =
1 would need to occur between -1.1 and 0 seconds.)
[[Page 51046]]
(b) Data elements required for vehicles under specified conditions.
Each vehicle equipped with an EDR must record each of the data elements
listed in column 1 of Table II for which the vehicle meets the
condition specified in column 2 of that table, during the interval/time
and at the sample rate specified in that table.
Table II.--Data Elements Required for Vehicles Under Specified Conditions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recording interval/time Data sample
Data element name Condition for requirement 1 (relative to time rate (per
zero) second)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lateral acceleration..................... If recorded \2\........... 0-250 ms................. 500
Longitudinal acceleration................ If recorded............... 0-250 ms................. 500
Normal acceleration...................... If recorded............... 0-250 ms................. 500
Delta-V, lateral......................... If recorded............... 0-250 ms................. 100
Maximum delta-V, lateral................. If recorded............... 0-300 ms................. N.A.
Time maximum delta-V, lateral............ If recorded............... 0-300 ms................. N.A.
Time for maximum delta-V, resultant...... If recorded............... 0-300 ms................. N.A.
Engine rpm............................... If recorded............... -5.0 to 0 sec............ 2
Vehicle roll angle....................... If recorded............... -1.0 up to 5.0 sec 3..... 10
ABS activity (engaged, non-engaged)...... If recorded............... -5.0 to 0 sec............ 2
Stability control (on, off, engaged)..... If recorded............... -5.0 to 0 sec............ 2
Steering input........................... If recorded............... -5.0 to 0 sec............ 2
Safety belt status, right front passenger If recorded............... -1.0 sec................. N.A.
(buckled, not buckled).
Frontal air bag suppression switch If recorded............... -1.0 sec................. N.A.
status, right front passenger (on, off,
or auto).
Frontal air bag deployment, time to nth If equipped with a Event.................... N.A.
stage, driver 4. driver's frontal air bag
with a multi-stage
inlator.
Frontal air bag deployment, time to nth If equipped with a right Event.................... N.A.
stage, right front passenger 4. front passenger's frontal
air bag with a multi-
stage inflator.
Frontal air bag deployment, nth stage If recorded............... Event.................... N.A.
disposal, driver, Y/N (whether the nth
stage deployment was for occupant
restraint or propellant disposal
purposes).
Frontal air bag deployment, nth stage If recorded............... Event.................... N.A.
disposal, right front passenger, Y/N
(whether the nth stage deployment was
for occupant restraint or propellant
disposal purposes).
Side air bag deployment, time to deploy, If recorded............... Event.................... N.A.
driver.
Side air bag deployment, time to deploy, If recorded............... Event.................... N.A.
right front passenger.
Side curtain/tube air bag deployment, If recorded............... Event.................... N.A.
time to deploy, driver side.
Side curtain/tube air bag deployment, If recorded............... Event.................... N.A.
time to deploy, right side.
Pretensioner deployment, time to fire, If recorded............... Event.................... N.A.
driver.
Pretensioner deployment, time to fire, If recorded............... Event.................... N.A.
right front passenger.
Seat track position switch, foremost, If recorded............... -1.0 sec................. N.A.
status, driver.
Seat track position switch, foremost, If recorded............... -1.0 sec................. N.A.
status, right front passenger.
Occupant size classification, driver..... If recorded............... -1.0 sec................. N.A.
Occupant size classification, right front If recorded............... -1.0 sec................. N.A.
passenger.
Occupant position classification, driver. If recorded............... -1.0 sec................. N.A.
Occupant position classification, right If recorded............... -1.0 sec................. N.A.
front passenger.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Pre-crash data and crash data are asynchronous. The sample time accuracy requirement for pre-crash time is -
0.1 to 1.0 sec (e.g. T = -1 would need to occur between -1.1 and 0 seconds.)
2 ``If recorded'' means if the data is recorded in non-volatile memory for the purpose of subsequent
downloading.
3 ``Vehicle roll angle'' may be recorded in any time duration, -1.0 sec to 5.0 sec is suggested.
4 List this element n-1 times, once for each stage of a multi-stage air bag system.
Sec. 563.8 Data format.
(a) The data elements listed in Tables I and II, as applicable,
must be recorded in accordance with the range, accuracy, resolution,
and filter class specified in Table III.
Table III.--Recorded Data Element Format
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Data element Range Accuracy Resolution Filter class
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lateral acceleration............ -50 g to + 50 g... 5%.... 0.01 g............ SAE J211-1,\1\
Class 60.
Longitudinal acceleration....... -50 g to + 50 g... 5%.... 0.01 g............ SAE J211-1,\1\
Class 60.
Normal Acceleration............. -50 g to + 50 g... 5%.... 0.01 g............ SAE J211-1,\1\
Class 60.
Longitudinal delta-V............ -100 km/h + 100 km/ 5%.... 1 km/h............ N.A.
h.
Lateral delta-V................. -100 km/h to + 100 5%.... 1 km/h............ N.A.
km/h.
Maximum delta-V, longitudinal... + 100 km/h + 100 5%.... 1 km/h............ N.A.
km/h.
Maximum delta-V, lateral........ -100 km/h to + 100 5%.... 1 km/h............ N.A.
km/h.
[[Page 51047]]
Time, maximum delta-V, 0-300 ms.......... 3 ms.. 2.5 ms............ N.A.
longitudinal.
Time, maximum delta-V, lateral.. 0-300 ms.......... 3 ms.. 2.5 ms............ N.A.
Time, maximum delta-V, resultant 0-300 ms.......... 3 ms.. 2.5 ms............ N.A.
Vehicle Roll Angle.............. -1080 deg to + 10 deg 10 deg............ N.A.
1080 deg.
Speed, vehicle indicated........ 0 km/h to 200 km/h 1 km/h 1 km/h............ N.A.
Engine throttle, percent full 0 to 100%........ 5%.... 1%................ N.A.
(accelerator pedal percent
full).
Engine rpm...................... 0 to 10,000 rpm... 100 100 rpm........... N.A.
rpm.
Service brake, on, off.......... On and Off........ N.A............... On and Off........ N.A.
ABS activity.................... On and Off........ N.A............... On and Off........ N.A.
Stability control (on, off, On, Off, Engaged.. N.A............... On, Off, Engaged.. N.A.
engaged).
Steering wheel angle............ -250 deg CW to + 5 deg. 5 deg............. N.A.
250 deg CCW.
Ignition cycle, crash........... 0 to 60,000....... 1 1 cycle........... N.A.
cycle.
Ignition cycle, download........ 0 to 60,000....... 1 1 cycle........... N.A.
cycle.
Safety belt status, driver...... On or Off......... N.A............... On or Off......... N.A.
Safety belt status, right front On or Off......... N.A............... On or Off......... N.A.
passenger.
Frontal air bag warning lamp On or Off......... N.A............... On or Off......... N.A.
(on, off).
Frontal air bag suppression On or Off......... N.A............... On or Off......... N.A.
switch status.
Frontal air bag deployment, time 0 to 250 ms....... 2 ms.. 1 ms.............. N.A.
to deploy/first stage, driver.
Frontal air bag deployment, time 0 to 250 ms...... 2 ms.. 1 ms.............. N.A.
to deploy/first stage, right
front passenger.
Frontal air bag deployment, time 0 to 250 ms....... 2 ms.. 1 ms.............. N.A.
to nth stage, driver.
Frontal air bag deployment, time 0 to 250 ms...... 2 ms.. 1 ms.............. N.A.
to nth stage, right front
passenger.
Frontal air bag deployment, nth Yes/No............ N.A............... Yes/No............ N.A.
stage disposal, driver, y/n.
Frontal air bag deployment, nth Yes/No............ N.A............... Yes/No............ N.A.
stage disposal, right front
passenger, y/n.
Side air bag deployment, time to 0 to 250 ms....... 2 ms.. 1 ms.............. N.A.
deploy, driver.
Side air bag deployment, time to 0 to 250 ms....... 2 ms.. 1 ms.............. N.A.
deploy, right front passenger.
Side curtain/tube air bag 0 to 250 ms....... 2 ms.. 1 ms.............. N.A.
deployment, time to deploy,
driver side.
Side curtain/tube air bag 0 to 250 ms....... 2 ms.. 1 ms.............. N.A.
deployment, time to deploy,
right side.
Pretensioner deployment, time to 0 to 250 ms....... 2 ms. 1 ms.............. N.A.
fire, driver.
Pretensioner deployment, time to 0 to 250 ms....... 2 ms.. 1 ms.............. N.A.
fire, right front passenger.
Seat track position switch, Yes/No............ N.A............... Yes/No............ N.A.
foremost, status, driver.
Seat track position switch, Yes/No............ N.A............... Yes/No............ N.A.
foremost, status, right front
passenger.
Occupant size driver occupant Yes/No............ N.A............... Yes/No............ N.A.
5th female size y/n.
Occupant size right front Yes/No............ N.A............... Yes/No............ N.A.
passenger child y/n.
Occupant position Yes/No............ N.A............... Yes/No............ N.A.
classification, driver oop y/n.
Occupant position Yes/No............ N.A............... Yes/No............ N.A.
classification, right front
passenger oop y/n.
Multi-event, number of events 1 or 2............ N.A............... 1 or 2............ N.A.
(1, 2).
Time from event 1 to 2.......... 0 to 5.0 sec...... 0.1 sec........... 0.1 sec........... N.A.
Complete file recorded (yes/no). Yes/No............ N.A............... Yes/No............ N.A.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Incorporated by reference, see Sec. 563.4.
(b) Acceleration Time-History data and format: The longitudinal,
lateral, and normal acceleration time-history data, as applicable, must
be filtered in accordance with the filter class specified in Table III
either during the recording phase or during the data downloading phase
to include:
(1) The Time Step (TS) that is the inverse of the sampling
frequency of the acceleration data and which has units of seconds;
(2) The number of the first point (NFP), which is an integer that
when multiplied by the TS equals the time
[[Page 51048]]
relative to time zero of the first acceleration data point;
(3) The number of the last point (NLP), which is an integer that
when multiplied by the TS equals the time relative to time zero of the
last acceleration data point; and
(4) NLP-NFP+1 acceleration values sequentially beginning with the
acceleration at time NFP*TS and continue sampling the acceleration at
TS increments in time until the time NLP*TS is reached.
Sec. 563.9 Data capture.
The EDR must capture and record the data elements for events in
accordance with the following conditions and circumstances:
(a) In an air bag deployment crash, the data recorded from any
previous crash must be deleted (both events). The data related to the
deployment must be captured and recorded. The memory must be locked to
prevent any future overwriting of these data.
(b) In an air bag non-deployment crash that meets the trigger
threshold, delete all previously recorded data in the EDR's memory.
Capture and record the current data, up to two events. In the case of
two events, detection of the second event starts after the End of Event
Time for event 1.
Sec. 563.10 Crash test performance and survivability.
(a) Each vehicle subject to the requirements of S5, S14.5, S15, or
S17 of 49 CFR 571.208, Occupant crash protection, must comply with the
requirements in subpart (c) of this section when tested according to
S8, S16, and S18 of 49 CFR 571.208.
(b) Each vehicle subject to the requirements of 49 CFR 571.214,
Side impact protection, that meets a trigger threshold or has a frontal
air bag deployment, must comply with the requirements of subpart (c) of
this section when tested according to the conditions specified in 49
CFR 571.214 for a moving deformable barrier test.
(c) The data elements required by Sec. 563.7, except for the
``Engine throttle, percent full,'' ``engine RPM,'' and ``service brake,
on/off,'' must be recorded in the format specified by Sec. 563.8,
exist at the completion of the crash test, and be retrievable by the
methodology specified by the vehicle manufacturer under Sec. 563.12
for not less than 10 days after the test, and the complete data
recorded element must read ``yes'' after the test.
Sec. 563.11 Information in owner's manual.
(a) The owner's manual in each vehicle covered under this
regulation must provide the following statement in English:
This vehicle is equipped with an event data recorder (EDR). The
main purpose of an EDR is to record, in certain crash or near crash-
like situations, such as an air bag deployment or hitting a road
obstacle, data that will assist in understanding how a vehicle's
systems performed. The EDR is designed to record data related to
vehicle dynamics and safety systems for a short period of time,
typically 30 seconds or less. The EDR in this vehicle is designed to
record such data as:
How various systems in your vehicle were operating;
Whether or not the driver and passenger safety belts
were buckled/fastened;
How far (if at all) the driver was depressing the
accelerator and/or brake pedal; and,
How fast the vehicle was traveling.
These data can help provide a better understanding of the
circumstances in which crashes and injuries occur. NOTE: EDR data
are recorded by your vehicle only if a non-trivial crash situation
occurs; no data are recorded by the EDR under normal driving
conditions and no personal data (e.g., name, gender, age, and crash
location) are recorded. However, other parties, such as law
enforcement, could combine the EDR data with the type of personally
identifying data routinely acquired during a crash investigation.
To read data recorded by an EDR, special equipment is required,
and access to the vehicle or the EDR is needed. In addition to the
vehicle manufacturer, other parties, such as law enforcement, that
have the special equipment, can read the information if they have
access to the vehicle or the EDR.
(b) The owner's manual may include additional information about the
form, function, and capabilities of the EDR, in supplement to the
required statement in Sec. 563.11(a).
Sec. 563.12 Data retrieval tools.
Each manufacturer of a motor vehicle equipped with an EDR shall
ensure by licensing agreement or other means that a tool(s) is
commercially available that is capable of accessing and retrieving the
data stored in the EDR that are required by this part. The tool(s)
shall be commercially available not later than 90 days after the first
sale of the motor vehicle for purposes other than resale.
Issued on: August 18, 2006.
Nicole R. Nason,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 06-7094 Filed 8-21-06; 10:00 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P